From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Century Arms & ATF Firearms Survey Date: 01 Jan 1998 17:54:05 -0700 >Date: 12/24/97 3:12 AM > >RE: Re: Century Arms & ATF Firearms Survey >TJJOHNSTN wrote: >> >> Century Arms is attempting to organize a response to the ATF "sporting >> purposes" survey. I think it is important for all ranges and gun clubs to join >> in their response. >> >> TJ Johnston >> >> >> ----------- >> While BATF determines whether any of the above are "generally >> recognized" as suitable for "sporting purposes", they have stated >> that anyone wishing to comment on their suitability for "sporting >> purposes" can have something in writing to them by January 9th, 1998. >> Therefore we have undertaken this initiative to complete the following >> survey which results will be forwarded to BATF before the deadline. >> >> The bottom line is that we feel the public response to this survey can >> make a difference in their decision in not banning this group of firearms >> and who knows which group next year? >> >> We have created a survey at: www.centuryarms.com/survey.htm which we >> will collect and provide the results to BATF. >> >> We are asking that you provide us a link on your front page of web site >> and assist us in any other way you can during the short time we have >> remaining, as this will effect everyone! >> >> Please let me know how you can help. Time is of the essence. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Century Int'l Arms >> >> Please go to this web address and fill out the questionaire that is located >> there. It directly affects us all. >> >> http://www.centuryarms.com/survey.htm > >T.J., I don't give a fuck whether any firearm is suitable for "sporting >purposes" or not, and I'm starting not to care whether or not our legal >and lobbying efforts are sufficient to prevent the current group of >gangsters from unleashing a reign of terror upon the privately armed >American citizenry in order to terrorize us into giving up our arms. > >If the American people are as spineless as the Brits and the Aussies, >then we don't deserve freedom. If some of the stubborn backbone that led >to the kicking out of George the 3rd is left in this country, then >either the gunbanners will be kicked out of office peacably or they will >create additional occasions for violence and provoke another bloody >civil war, in which many Americans will die. Considering that I'll >probably be one of the first lined up againsty the wall and shot, I >won't have to live with the consequences of their lethal foolishness. > >Efforts at disarming the American people only serve to break the social >contract forged in 1775, 1787, and 1791. If the American people still >like that deal -- the idea that the people are sovereign and the >government is inferior to the people -- they're going to have to make it >a lot plainer than they've done so far. > >And if they don't, then all the lobbying and court challenges that we >raise will be for nought anyway. > >I have more faith in the steadfastness of the American people in their >love of liberty than do our enemies. Let them do their worst. It will >merely test us once again. > >Neil > > >-- >"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however >improbable, must be the truth." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, THE SIGN OF >FOUR > >J. Neil Schulman / Pulpless.Com > Voice & Fax: (500) 44-JNEIL > Internet: jneil@pulpless.com > Personal Web Page: http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/ I vote with Neil! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. -Winston Churchill - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: FWD: Pro RKBA Attorneys -Forwarded Date: 02 Jan 1998 19:17:57 -0700 Received: (qmail 986 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 1998 21:48:48 -0000 Delivered-To: rkba-co-outgoing@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 903 invoked by uid 516); 2 Jan 1998 21:48:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 877 invoked from network); 2 Jan 1998 21:48:40 -0000 Received: from snarf.avana.net (HELO Email.Avana.Net) (root@205.245.133.9) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 2 Jan 1998 21:48:40 -0000 Received: from tiger.avana.net (tiger.avana.net [205.245.133.2]) by Email.Avana.Net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA27240; Fri, 2 Jan 1998 16:49:04 -0500 Received: from jerry.avana.net (atl120.avana.net [205.245.133.120]) by tiger.avana.net (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id QAA14356; Fri, 2 Jan 1998 16:48:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <34AD63B6.7C0@2die4.com> Organization: REAL Pro SECOND AMENDMENT Activist-never give up X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 pa-rkba@pobox.com, FIREARMS@LISTSERV.UTA.EDU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Posted to rkba-co by Nancy ----------------------- PRESS RELEASE -- PRO-GUN ATTORNEYS WANTED FOR WEB-BASED CONTACT LIST As a public service I have decided to provide space available on my web page for any of my fellow pro-gun rights attorneys who would like to make available their basic contact information. You do not need to be a "Second Amendment lawyer;" you only need to be pro-gun. Please email your submissions to , , or via a posting to me in the Paul Revere Network in the following format: Name Firm & Address Phone # Fax # Internet email address Home page URL Areas of practice Bar admissions RKBA Organizational Memberships Please feel free to cross-post this message *where appropriate* and forward it to anyone you think would be interested. * 1st 2.00 ~ Visit my home page: http://www.erols.com/dsmjd For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: [INFO] Converse and HCI -Forwarded Date: 02 Jan 1998 19:19:11 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA15077; Thu, 1 Jan 1998 22:56:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma015046; Thu Jan 1 22:55:36 1998 Message-Id: <0B9304434FFFCF118F400000F822310D0204437E@cscnts9.rti.org> Errors-To: listproc@fs1.mainstream.com Reply-To: jbp@rti.org Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Noban: >From the HCI web page: ******** The Converse STAR Team Program, 1995-1997 The Converse STAR Team Program is a joint effort of Converse Inc. and Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. This collaborative project represents the Center's first and largest corporate partnership. The program is designed to raise awareness among children and teens, especially urban teens, about the risks and consequences associated with illegal possession and use of handguns. The program will also, importantly, give children and teens engaged in the national STAR program a prominent voice and highlight their solutions to America's escalating crisis of handgun violence. Prominent athletes serve as spokespersons for the 3-year program: Latrell Sprewell Kevin Johnson, formerly of the Phoenix Suns Sharone Wright of the Toronto Raptors Nikki McCray of USA Basketball Carla McGhee of USA Basketball Katy Steding of USA Basketball Converse athletes and STAR youth are featured in a short educational video stressing alternatives and solutions to handguns and violence. Seven TV PSAs are being broadcast nationally with the same message strategy. A youth-oriented brochure stressing the theme of alternatives to guns and violence is being distributed at basketball camps, in displays at retail outlets where Converse products are sold, and through the Center's STAR program. (snip) ************** Is Converse anti-gun? Why are they doing this with HCI? Gun owners need to know about this. But, you do have to love Latrell Sprewell being at the top of the list educating kids about non-violence! (well, at least he didn't use a gun... :-) John Posthill (P.S. more from the web page: Converse STAR Team: STAR, or Straight Talk About Risks, is the Nation's premier gun-violence prevention program for school-aged youth and their families. [puke!] Worse yet, they are piloting this in the public schools in Dade Co., FL.) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jwaldron@halcyon.com Subject: Re: [INFO] Converse and HCI -Forwarded Date: 04 Jan 1998 06:20:15 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 02 Jan 1998, DAVID SAGERS wrote: > >>From the HCI web page: > >******** >The Converse STAR Team Program, > 1995-1997 > >The Converse STAR Team Program is a joint effort of Converse Inc. and >Center to Prevent >Handgun Violence. This collaborative project represents the Center's >first and largest >corporate partnership. The program is designed to raise awareness among >children and >teens, especially urban teens, about the risks and consequences >associated with illegal >possession and use of handguns. > >The program will also, importantly, give children and teens engaged in >the national STAR >program a prominent voice and highlight their solutions to America's >escalating crisis of >handgun violence. > >Prominent athletes serve as spokespersons for the 3-year program: > > Latrell Sprewell > >Converse athletes and STAR youth are featured in a short educational >video stressing >alternatives and solutions to handguns and violence. What a joke. I guess the "alternatives" include choking and punching... For those that are not aware of it, STAR (Straight Talk About Risks) is often billed as HCI/CPHV's counter to eddie Eagle. In fact, it is a rabidly anti-gun political action program that indoctrinates children K-12 to lobby lawmakers and community leaders to pass more gun control laws, etc. About three years ago, NRA-ILA chief researcher Paul Blackman did an excellent analysis of STAR. They may still have a copy available. Converse needs to be told in straight and clear term what y are involved with... and then let the market decide. Joe W > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: jwaldron@halcyon.com Subject: Re: [INFO] Converse and HCI -Forwarded Date: 04 Jan 1998 06:20:15 -0800 (PST) On Fri, 02 Jan 1998, DAVID SAGERS wrote: > >>From the HCI web page: > >******** >The Converse STAR Team Program, > 1995-1997 > >The Converse STAR Team Program is a joint effort of Converse Inc. and >Center to Prevent >Handgun Violence. This collaborative project represents the Center's >first and largest >corporate partnership. The program is designed to raise awareness among >children and >teens, especially urban teens, about the risks and consequences >associated with illegal >possession and use of handguns. > >The program will also, importantly, give children and teens engaged in >the national STAR >program a prominent voice and highlight their solutions to America's >escalating crisis of >handgun violence. > >Prominent athletes serve as spokespersons for the 3-year program: > > Latrell Sprewell > >Converse athletes and STAR youth are featured in a short educational >video stressing >alternatives and solutions to handguns and violence. What a joke. I guess the "alternatives" include choking and punching... For those that are not aware of it, STAR (Straight Talk About Risks) is often billed as HCI/CPHV's counter to eddie Eagle. In fact, it is a rabidly anti-gun political action program that indoctrinates children K-12 to lobby lawmakers and community leaders to pass more gun control laws, etc. About three years ago, NRA-ILA chief researcher Paul Blackman did an excellent analysis of STAR. They may still have a copy available. Converse needs to be told in straight and clear term what y are involved with... and then let the market decide. Joe W > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com: Jan. 7 column -- judicial appointments] Date: 05 Jan 1998 06:30:21 -0700 The latest from Vin... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JAN. 7, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Advice and consent In an unusual strongly-worded rebuke, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Court used his annual year-end report on the state of the judiciary to warn that the federal court system stands at risk of being swamped. The action -- or inaction -- of Congress has left the bench with "too few judges and too much work," the chief justice wrote in the 19-page document. Of course, such a problem can be approached in two ways. And to his credit, Justice Rehnquist did not limit himself to merely asking for more money and staff. "I therefore call on Congress to consider legislative proposals that would reduce the jurisdiction of Federal courts," the chief justice wrote. What? A federal officer reminding us that there are and should be limits on the number of matters in which his branch of government meddles ... actually warning that a further expansion of his department by as little as 20 percent could "endanger its distinctive character"? No wonder many a Washington commentator -- long accustomed to presuming that all good things require the midwifery of an ever-larger government -- finds the old Arizona lawyer such a puzzle. Unfortunately, from the context of Mr. Rehnquist's remarks it becomes clear the judge was thinking mostly of limited legislation, carefully crafted to reduce the number of death penalty appeals filed by prisoners, and so forth. This justice, long ago, missed the chance to boldly insist that the federal government get its nose out of a thousand areas which were unregulated by any government as little as 90 years ago. The chief justice, of course, would need to convince only four other jurists of that concept, in order to begin throwing out one federal law -- or agency -- after another. Instead, the major thrust of the justice's remarks targeted the slow rate at which federal judgeship vacancies are being filled. Currently, 82 of the 846 federal judicial offices authorized in Article III -- almost 1 in 10 -- sit vacant. While the Democratic Senate confirmed 101 nominees in 1994, since Republicans gained power that august body has confirmed only 17 judges in 1996, and 36 in 1997. Fully 26 of the 82 current openings have sat vacant for more than 18 months. Part of the blame for this lies with Mr. Clinton, who since his very first months in office has fallen considerably behind the pace of his predecessors in submitting nominations, in the first place. But the more outspoken conservatives in Congress have also made no secret of the fact that they are dragging their feet on approving nominees who they see as irredeemably "liberal." It is the frustration of that partisan trench warfare which doubtless led White House spokesman Joe Lockhart to seize on Justice Rehnquist's remarks last week, exclaiming, "Hear! Hear! Justice Rehnquist," and adding "Our judicial system is more important than playing partisan politics." Really? Isn't it interesting that when conservative members of congress object to the judicial philosophies of Mr. Clinton's nominees, they are playing "partisan politics" ... while Mr. Clinton, of course, uses no partisan benchmark to pre-screen his nominees, merely requiring that they favor Mom and apple pie? In fact, if the White House now considers the filling of those vacancies more important that "partisan politics," a perfect solution presents itself. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states the president "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint ... judges of the supreme court," and such other lesser offices as shall be established by law. Everyone understands the meaning of the word "consent." But what is that word "advice" doing in there? Does the president regularly approach the Republican senators and seek their "advice" before naming his nominees? (As I understand the word, "advice" is the kind of thing you can only ask for (start ital)before(end ital) you take action.) Of course not. This president, like so many of his predecessors, seems to have forgotten the mandate that he seek the senate's "advice." So, if "partisan politics" is now anathema at the White House -- if they no longer care whether a nominee favors racial quotas, or might find the Endangered Species Act unconstitutional -- why doesn't Mr. Clinton simply ask Sen. Orrin Hatch and his brethren on the Senate Judiciary Committee to advise him of 82 qualified nominees from (start ital)their(end ital) party? Surely the senators could come up with 82 qualified conservative legal scholars, dedicated to a strict reading of the Constitution as an inflexible mandate for government sharply limited, and personal liberties expansive and innumerable? If the president would then submit those 82 names, upon the prior "advice" of the senate as required -- and without any consideration of the "partisan politics" he now so abhors -- it's a good bet the whole lot would be confirmed by Groundhog Day ... crisis resolved. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but with tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will be certainly be lost." -- William Lloyd Garrison - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Sonny Bono -Forwarded Date: 07 Jan 1998 10:27:08 -0700 Received: from WVC-Message_Server by wp.ci.west-valley.ut.us with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 07 Jan 1998 10:39:32 -0700 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 4.1 Poor Sonny Bono --- bad enough to die horribly at the very moment you're having fun with your family, but to die like a common Kennedy? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: New Pro-Gun Web Site to Visit -Forwarded Date: 07 Jan 1998 10:25:45 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id XAA10480; Tue, 6 Jan 1998 23:43:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma010448; Tue Jan 6 23:42:36 1998 Message-Id: <199816192847324370@> Errors-To: listproc@fs1.mainstream.com Reply-To: cyrano@ix.netcom.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Here is the URL for a new pro-freedom and pro-Second Amendment web site you should all visit: www.guntruths.com/ Steve Silver Vice President The Lawyer's Second Amendment Society, Inc. 18034 Ventura Blvd., No. 329 Encino, CA 91316 (818) 734-3066 (The LSAS is a 501(c)(4) Non-Profit Corporation) Visit the LSAS's new and updated Web page at: http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/lsas Send an e-mail request, including your snail mail address, to: LSAS3@aol.com for a complimentary copy of the LSAS's newsletter, The Liberty Pole. Remember: Firearms are worth it if they save just one life. *** Self-defense is not a crime. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: S.L. District Votes for New School, Gun Ban Date: 07 Jan 1998 10:32:44 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------52A269AA1F0E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.sltrib.com/010798/utah/16225.asp ack ack ack.... Dolores Riley, said [it]...came about after two complaints... ``When I called them in, they were...surprised...Most have been reasonable, but some have chosen to leave the district,'' I wonder, which of the two is "most" and which of the two is "some"? "Besides, if we are going to have these policies for kids, we can't expect them to do it if we're not going to do it too." -Elaine Tzourtzouklis, president of the Salt Lake Teachers Association Never have more sane and rational words been spoken by an adult who can vote, drive, drink, marry, have sex, smoke.... Elaine is my hero. Yet another living breathing proof of the maxim "people are f**king stupid". So...we have these "policies" that we as adults have to abide by because "the Chiiiiiiiiilllllllldreeeeeen" won't respect us for "imposing policies" on them that we ignore. By doing this, we ignore the "policy" that states that local governmental agencies can't make gun policy. But that's ok, 'cos we're ...er...adults...yeah, that's it, we're older, wiser, smarter, better and infinitly more caring than you. And the USSC says we shouldn't sue these mo-rons. Well, I'm starting to agree. Actually, "starting" is the wrong word. I agree completely. I'm sending money to Guv. Mikey, Mayor DD, Senator and Newspaper publisher Steiner, the UEA and any other of these craven mufos that I can think of. The sooner they get re-elected the sooner they get their way. It's time to let the "karma train" pull into the station and park a while. [irrational rant mode - off] [idiot tribune quote mode - on] --------------52A269AA1F0E Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="16225.asp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="16225.asp" Content-Base: "http://www.sltrib.com/010798/utah/1622 5.asp" S.L. District Votes for New School, Gun Ban
Wednesday, January 7, 1998

S.L. District Votes for New School, Gun Ban


BY HILARY GROUTAGE
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
   
   
    A decision to ban guns and build a new elementary school by 1999 dominated a lengthy meeting of the Salt Lake City Board of Education on Tuesday.
    About two dozen residents of the northwest area of the city attended the meeting to urge members to move forward quickly with plans for a new school.
    ``Do not think in terms of election votes and make a decision that will haunt you for the rest of your lives,'' said former board member Tab Uno, who lives in the area. ``Many students have waited and suffered for six years. We have waited long enough.''
    Parent Michael Steed said the schools are so crowded that students in Newman Elementary's resource program have been moved from the copy room to the boiler room to receive the extra instruction they need.
    ``We can no longer allow these children to suffer,'' he said.
    In the end, board members went against Superintendent Darline Robles' recommendation to hold off until fall of 2000 to open the new school and voted instead to adopt a ``fast track'' approach and complete the school one year sooner.
    ``I cannot guarantee the quality of the school in 1999,'' Robles said.
    Also opposing the move was board President Karen Derrick, who said since this would be the first new school built in the district in 26 years, board members should proceed cautiously.
    The comment drew groans from parents in the audience.
    ``I recognize there are some issues and challenges here, but we can do hard things and be successful,'' said board member Cliff Higbee, who represents the northwest part of the city. ``We've got a whole community who recognizes the problem that has been out there for seven or eight years.''
    The motion, which included an amendment not to close another school in order to open the new one, passed four votes to three.
    But the board was unanimous in its support of a measure that requires teachers, volunteers and administrators with a fondness for firearms to leave their guns at home -- even if they have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
    The policy passed with little discussion, except a boost from Salt Lake City's Assistant Chief of Police Steve Chapman, who said the policy is ``sound.''
    ``There are just too many guns on the street and in the schools,'' Chapman said.
    The policy states that personnel may not carry or possess a firearm, loaded or unloaded, or anything that even looks like a gun on district property, buses or in parking lots. Guns used for demonstration purposes would be exempt from the policy.
    Dolores Riley, assistant superintendent, human resources, said the measure came about after two complaints earlier this school year that district employees were carrying guns. In both cases, she said, colleagues turned the person in.
    ``When I called them in, they were not angry so much as surprised, because they had a permit. Most have been reasonable, but some have chosen to leave the district,'' she said.
    Students already are prohibited from carrying firearms as part of the state's Safe Schools Policy, and the district's legal counsel John Robson said it was within the law to restrict employees' rights to carry guns.
    ``We go through metal detectors in airports and in courthouses. People's right to possess and carry firearms are curbed all the time,'' he said.
    The 1995 Legislature made it easier to obtain permits to conceal and carry firearms. But Gov. Mike Leavitt recently banned state employees from carrying firearms in state buildings or on the job.
    At Highland High School, junior ROTC instructor Gregory Smith said he favors such a policy.
    ``I know we have quite a diverse population here at Highland and I have never been afraid for my life. I don't think I'm ignorant or naive, I just don't think weapons are necessary here,'' he said.
    Elaine Tzourtzouklis, president of the Salt Lake Teachers Association, echoed Smith.
    ``Teachers just don't have any concern [about the policy] at all,'' she said.
    When the policy was first discussed in December, Tzourtzouklis voiced opposition to applying the policy even to teachers' cars parked in school lots.
    ``I can understand why they say that now. Anyone could break into your car,'' she said. ``Besides, if we are going to have these policies for kids, we can't expect them to do it we we're not going to do it too.''
   
   

Wednesday Navigation Bar



© Copyright 1998, The Salt Lake Tribune

All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune.

Contact The Salt Lake Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here.
--------------52A269AA1F0E-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Ruby Ridge Updates -- Local News Reports (1998) Date: 07 Jan 1998 13:45:47 -0700 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------3AC149869BF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.ruby-ridge.com/localnews98.htm#KootenaiValleyTimes971218 Just heard on the radio that the judge found "probable cause" to try Lon on charges of manslaughter. Maybe there is some justice left in the world --------------3AC149869BF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; name="localnews98.htm" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="localnews98.htm" LOCAL NEWS REPORTS (1998) Refresh these pages often -- They change almost daily. Can't wait for me to update this page? Check out the Spokesman-Review's on-line Ruby Ridge page. Below are brief summaries of articles on Ruby Ridge from several local and regional newspapers. Most newspapers copyright their content (and I really don't want to spend all my time and then some typing in their content), so the summaries and a few brief quotes will have to suffice. For subscription information, just click on the name of the paper. Direct links will be provided for any articles that are on-line; if any of these links break, please drop me a note." Kootenai Valley Times, December 18, 1997, article entitled "Judge not ready to rule on trial for Horiuchi", subtitled "Weaver family center of attention with Sarah Weaver taking the stand under fire from the defense". Contains a lot of the same material as the two articles below, so I'll focus on the highlights. "Saying that he [Judge Quentin Harden] had no doubt that Horiuchi, a sharpshooter working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had killed Vicki Weaver, he said that Horiuchi had no intent to kill her. 'The issue is, was it (the shooting) done in a careless or reckless manner . . . must a breach of duty be more than ordinary negligence,' Harden instructed attorneys for prosecution and defense to file Memoranda of Authority, citing case law similar to the case in question." ". . . said defense attorney Hoffinger, 'The standards of care must be different for a medic in wartime than for a plastic surgeon working in Beverly Hills [I find that a rather disgusting metaphor -- real medics don't kill U.S. citizens],'he said, 'We're not talking about shooting into a crowd.' "'Yes, your honor, it is like shooting into a crowd,' retorted Woodbury, taking advantage of the prosecution's opportunity to respond. 'There were minor children, a baby, a 16-year-old girl, a mother, father and Kevin Harris, all of whom ran across that porch and into the hour (where Horiuchi shot).' she said. 'They did have rules of engagement, but only two shots were fired. Long Horiuchi's the one who fired those two shots.'" "Hoffinger devoted much of his time questioning Sarah Weaver to try to establish the anti-government sentiment in the Weaver household just prior to the shooting. His rapid-fire attempts to establish a sympathy for Nazis, swastikas and the term ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government) were thwarted by Weaver's angry, terse retorts. When asked to confirm, for instance, that she had marked swastikas on her calendar, she said, 'Is is illegal to use it?' 'Have you used it, yes or no?' he persisted, and she said she had. Asked to confirm that she and her mother both were "crack shots, better even than your father . . . and your sister, Rachel, was taught to shoot young' [Just keep it up Hoffinger -- with questioning and an attitude like that that, you'll fall flat on your face in front of any Idaho jury in any court -- state or federal -- and that's just what most of us would like to see you do.]," Weaver said "Define young." "Hoffinger wanted [Sarah] Weaver to say that she knew her father had armor-piercing ammunition in the house . . ." [Whoopee, ding, Hoffinger, go back to Washington, D.C., where you belong. As a teenager in northern Idaho I used to buy & shoot armor-piercing ammunition all the time. Many millions of round became surplus when our military switched from .30-06 to the 7.62mm NATO cartridge. A store named Tri-State on the outskirts of Moscow, Idaho, used to put it out by the bucket for 10 cents per round; the ones with the black tips were armor-piercing. Better yet, stick around for a while -- at the rate you're going, you'll do a great job for the prosecution.] "Hoffinger asked if she was aware there was at least 14 guns in the house [Keep it up, City Slicker, that's a paltry "arsenal" by Idaho standards, especially for a household with 5 or 6 shooters] and 20,000 rounds found in the house [Have you read our Constitution lately, City Slicker? It has a second amendment that, by some strange coincidence, comes right after the first amendment. It's no more illegal to have 20,000 rounds of ammunition than it is to have 20,000 books or newspapers. That said, I must crank up my reloading presses (another skill I learned as a youth in Idaho) -- gotta catch up with the Weavers!] after the standoff ended. 'Didn't your mother and father make sure there were guns at the doors and windows, and isn't it true that you slept with guns?' [Sarah] Weaver disagreed" "At one point when the prosecution was questioning another of its witnesses, Randy Weaver, Judge Harden clearly was angry and had lost his patience with the objections of the defense counsel. 'Counsel will stop sniping at each other because the court will not tolerate that,' he said. 'The state may put on their case as they see fit.'" Horiuchi is now asserting his 5th amendment right not to testify. His attorneys tried to prevent transcripts of his testimony from the 1993 trial from being introduced as evidence. Prosecutor Yagman objected that their reasoning [that they couldn't cross examine a transcript] was absurd, and Judge Harden apparently agreed with him. "The decision on whether or not to hold Horiuchi over for trial will come some time after December 29, 1997." Bonners Ferry Herald, December 17, 1997, article entitled "Weaver faces Horiuchi in court", subtitled "No decision on whether FBI sharpshooter will face trial". The magistrate who presided over the preliminary hearing might not release his decision until 1998. Horiuchi appeared in person, dressed in dark blue suit. The magistrate did rule, "I find Lon Horiuchi did unlawfully kill Vicki Weaver", but he wants more information for ruling on whether the can can go to trial. Sarah Weaver (now 21, then 16) testified about the shootings of her father, her mother and their friend Kevin Harris. Defense attorney Hoffinger tried to suggest to her that "the family was preparing for a battle with the federal government". [This line of B.S. has been so thoroughly debunked so many times, they must really be grasping at straws to defend assassin Horiuchi.] Hoffinger also tried to portray her as a Nazi racist [All kids may be misguided at one time or another, or maybe she really is racist -- but is that any excuse to shoot her parents? Get a life, Hoffinger!] During his cross-examination of Randy Weaver, Hoffinger was admonished by the judge "to ask questions and don't testify". The judge is withholding his decision until the attorneys file opinions on the degree of negligence required. The prosecution contends that he was negligent because he fired into the house where children were located; Hoffinger contends that a "reckless disregard to safety" must be proven. The attorneys are to turn in the briefs by Dec. 29. Spokesman-Review, December 17, 1997, on-line article entitled "Weaver takes stand against FBI sniper ", subtitled "Agent returns to Boundary County as accused ". The assassin's attorneys are already trying to demonize the Weavers and their children by pursuing irrelevant lines of questioning, most of which was stopped by the judge. Prosecutor Woodbury is threatening to come back with a first-degree murder charge if the manslaughter charge is dismissed in the preliminary hearing. [Maybe she's coming to her senses? Murder is what it should have been from the beginning!] Spokesman-Review, December 16, 1997, on-line article entitled "Sniper to appear in court ", subtitled "Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris called as witnesses against agent". Bonner County Daily Bee, December 16, 1997, article entitled "FBI sharpshooter faces judge today", subtitled "Preliminary hearing to determine of Horiuchi will face felony charge". Today's hearing will determine if there is enough evidence to bring assassin Horiuchi to trial. Assassin "Horiuchi contends the woman's death as an accident . . . . [Prosecutor] Woodbury claims Horiuchi wasn't acting on behalf of the government when he fired into the Weaver cabin, because he had been ordered to protect people designated as hostages inside the cabin." Click here for 1997 local news reports. --------------3AC149869BF-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com: Jan. 18 column -- the 'general welfare'] Date: 08 Jan 1998 10:26:18 -0700 The latest from Vin ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JAN. 18, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz The 'general welfare' A correspondent identifying himself as "Publius" writes: "Dear Vin -- "I recently read your essay on our second national holiday, and believe I have an answer to one of your questions. You urge us to advise legislators to look at Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, and then ask, 'Which one of these 18 sentences gives you the specific, delegated power to spend FEDERAL tax money to pay the medical bills of barefoot Appalachian widows? Which one? Point to it.' "I find the answer in the very first sentence. The Congress has the power 'to promote the general welfare of the United States.' ... "Don't misunderstand me: I think a welfare state is a terrible idea, and that the only goal of government should be to prevent and/or punish aggression. I just think the Constitution gives them the widest mandate any tyrant could possibly want with those words. ..." Publius proposes that one solution would be to amend the Constitution, striking the words "and promote the general welfare." I replied: It's a good question, and another reminder that Joseph Sobran is right when he says that a government under the U.S. Constitution would hardly be perfect, "just a lot better than the one we've got now." One way to argue this case is that -- if that "general welfare" clause meant what the CURRENT court and Congress contend it means -- it surely would have been the LAST sentence of the Constitution. Why go on for several more pages, setting limits on this or that, when you've just given them all carte blanche? In fact, if they meant that Congress may do anything that a simple majority believes might further the "general welfare," why write a Constitution at all -- a Constitution which the Federalists THEMSELVES insisted was intended to LIMIT the new federal government to a very small number of functions, "sharply delineated"? But a closer reading is also possible. Does government charity for barefoot Appalachian widows actually advance the "general" welfare? Not if we suppose "general" to be set up as an antonym to "special," or "specific." I know the collectivist taxmen will argue we "all" benefit by sleeping better in the knowledge that all the little matchgirls have warm beds. But I strongly doubt the Founders were talking about the "welfare" of my conscience, or would have agreed that I should feel happy to see all my wealth looted for someone else's "good cause." At that point, what's to prevent the next "good cause" from being a bigger castle for the emperor, or a snazzier mausoleum for the Pharaoh? Milk price supports hardly advance the "general" welfare -- they specifically advance the interests of a tiny number of dairy farmer/campaign contributors, at the expense of HURTING the "general" welfare of the millions ... including the working poor with too many tiny mouths to feed. As do nearly ALL government interventions, no matter how high-sounding their titles. The furthest extension of this absurdity is the notion that thousands of individual property owners may be impoverished by the virtual seizure (or ban on productive use) of their land, to advance the "general" welfare through the far-fetched benefit folks purportedly receive from knowing that somewhere, in a distant rural environment they will never see, a few horned bugworms of three-toed salamanders have been granted free grazing privileges, never again to be disturbed by the sound of a nasty tractor or chainsaw. Does the "general welfare" now include the welfare of small beasties who will never cast a ballot? This way lies not just tyranny, but madness. But as for the notion of repealing the offending phrase: does anyone really think the self-aggrandizing buffoons currently ensconced in Washington City would make it worth our trouble by paying a single moment's heed to such a change ... any more then they currently tell every man and woman in uniform to go home after two years because the bill authorizing their pay has expired ... "and we'll call you the next time there's a war" ... as is the clear intent of the 12TH sentence of Article I, Section 8? If this phrase were gone, how long would it take them to "reinterpret" another obscure phrase to justify all they've done? Once the power to regulate interstate commerce was used to ban a Kansas wheat farmer from selling his wheat INSIDE HIS OWN STATE at a price lower than the rigged federal price ... on the theory that such sales would "AFFECT interstate commerce" in grain ... once this bunch of windbags felt free to ban handguns within a quarter-mile of a school INSIDE ONE OF THE SEVERAL STATES, justifying this intervention under the interstate commerce clause on the theory that "some components of the gun were most probably made in other states" ... I fear playing word games with this gang became a total waste of time. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire a dangerous servant and a terrible master." -- George Washington - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Latest Asset Forfeiture Scheme -Forwarded Date: 09 Jan 1998 08:25:57 -0700 Received: from xmission.XMISSION.com by legacy.derail.org (NTList 3.02.13) id pa404601; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 07:23:42 -0700 Received: from devans.xmission.com (slc75.modem.xmission.com [166.70.1.141]) by xmission.xmission.com (8.8.7/8.7.5) with SMTP id HAA03478 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 07:23:36 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980109073751.0070d39c@xmission.com> X-Sender: devans@xmission.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Info: Evaluation version at legacy.lgcy.com X-ListMember: dsagers@ci.west-valley.ut.us [discussion@derail.org] >Return-path: >Envelope-to: devans@xmission.com >Delivery-date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 21:49:19 -0700 >Date: Mon, 05 Jan 1998 21:51:30 -0800 >From: "Arnold J. Gaunt" >Organization: XMission >To: ajgaunt@xmission.com >Subject: Latest Asset Forfeiture Scheme > >Rep. Bill Hickman has concocted the latest asset forfeiture scheme - this one promises to protect >us against drunk drivers rather than drug dealers. Please read article at URL below. It might >be possible to extinguish this bad idea now if enough of us call Rep. Hickman and encourage him >to drop his proposal. I plan to call him tomorrow evening. His home phone is 673-2671, office >628-5100, and fax 628-0580. If you do contact him, I'd be interested in the response you get. >Also, please pass this message along to others who are forfeiture opponents. Thank you. > >http://www.standard.net/cgi-win/table.exe?local+5dui2.htm > > Arnold > > - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: NRA Bylaws: Preventing GREED from Taking Over -Forwarded Date: 09 Jan 1998 08:50:23 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id IAA29956; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 08:31:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma029935; Fri Jan 9 08:30:07 1998 Message-Id: <199801091251.HAA22215@post1.fast.net> Errors-To: listproc@fs1.mainstream.com Reply-To: behanna@fast.net Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list PLEASE READ, FOWARD, CROSS-POST, PRINT OUT, AND SHOW TO YOUR FRIENDS! POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES! PLACE IN YOUR MAILINGS. SPREAD THE WORD! ----- Begin Forwarded Message WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? by John H. Trentes Candidate - NRA Board of Directors Why should any of us send even a single dollar bill to the National Rifle Association of America without a solid assurance that it won't wind up in the pocket of a self-dealing officer, director, or vendor instead of being spent in the fight to protect the Second Amendment? If you just smiled knowingly at this question, then it is time we considered a few things about Human Nature and how it affects crucial business at our beloved Association. Money flows through the NRA, and lots of it. The number of individuals and organizations that have a personal stake in receiving part of that money is truly mind-boggling. They range from a shotgun trick shooter receiving a few thousand, up to large public relations and marketing firms that get paid MILLIONS. The stakes are high; no-one who has secured such a handsome paycheck from the Association wants to have it reduced or eliminated. All of these vendors have a vested interest in maintaining a profitable relationship with the NRA, at any cost. Human Nature is at work here, by which I really mean GREED. If greed becomes the moving force behind the daily activities of the NRA, then its mission will be forgotten. Should that day arrive, we will all pay a heavy price, and the medium of exchange will be our freedoms. Safeguards need to be put in place to expose conflicts of interest and self-dealing amongst those in charge, and to subject their political or financial conduct to the glaring light of day and to the critical scrutiny of the membership. Individuals with the solemn responsibility of leadership in this organization cannot be allowed to use their power, notoriety, or authority to shield their dealings with the NRA from public view. If this can be prevented, then and only then can we be satisfied that "every penny" of our money (yours and mine!) is being handled with a "Scotsman's stewardship". In the dark, even a Scotsman is tempted to cheat. The NRA By-laws already contain a financial disclosure provision (Article IV, Section 2) but, regrettably, it doesn't even come close to offering the fiscal protection we need. As it stands now, directors, officers, or employees of the NRA only have to disclose a self-dealing business transaction with the organization if it took place within the last year and if the amount of money changing hands was more than $2000.00. By setting a dollar amount like this, any dishonest officer, staff member, or director can easily avoid having to disclose his or her financial hanky-panky merely by splitting large-dollar transactions into numerous small deals amounting to no more than $2000.00 each. Therein, my friends, lies a GAPING loophole. In the next Board elections, the membership will vote on a by-law amendment that will slam this loophole shut with a resounding bang. The proposed amendment would: * Require Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, and members of the Executive Council to provide a sworn statement prior to the annual meeting that fully discloses all of his or her dealings with the NRA, its affiliates, Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, employees, vendors, or employees of vendors if they benefited in any way, WITH NO DOLLAR LIMIT, for the last THREE years; * Require the Executive Vice President, Treasurer, Executive Director of General Operations, Executive Director of NRA/ILA, and NRA/ILA Fiscal Officer to disclose all of his or her dealings with the Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, or Members and the Executive Council of the NRA, or its affiliates, Directors, Directors Elect, Officers, Employees, vendors, or employees of vendors OR ANYONE WHO HELD SUCH OFFICE IN THE LAST THREE YEARS, if it benefited him or her IN ANY WAY. Again, there is no dollar limit to skirt under; and * Prohibit any Officer of the NRA or Member of the Executive Council from undermining the fit and proper function of the Nominating Committee or the Board of Directors by misusing his or her public notoriety (notoriety that was cultivated with member dollars!) to influence Board of Director elections, an activity which is not within the duties, responsibilities, or authority granted to them by the By-laws. If you are tempted to succumb to the warm, fuzzy feeling that none of this is necessary because the NRA is one big happy family, that worrying about the financial conduct of the staff and directors is paranoid because, after all, blood is thicker than water, I have some distressing news for you: GREED is thicker than blood. And ask yourself this: If any current officer or director of the NRA is opposed to this by-law amendment... Why? What are they hiding from you? THE FOLLOWING CANDIDATES FOR NRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS WANT TO HELP YOU FIND OUT! VOTE FOR THE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE BYLAW AMENDMENT AND THESE BOARD CANDIDATES WHO SUPPORT IT! 1. Please vote for these Second Amendment Action candidates: Jerry L. Allen Michael J. Beko James A. Church William Dominguez Howard J. Fezell Daniel B. Fiora Arnold J. Gaunt Fred Griisser Wesley H. Grogan, Jr. David M. Gross John Guest Fred Gustafson Don L. Henry William B. Hunt Phillip B. Journey Michael S. Kindberg Jeff Knox John C. Krull Robley T. Moore Larry R. Rankin Albert C. Ross Frank H. Sawberger Thomas L. Seefeldt Kim Stolfer John H. Trentes Glen I. Voorhees, Jr. 2. Copy and circulate this letter: a) to NRA members on the internet, b) to your gun clubs and NRA member friends, c) distribute this letter and list at gun shows, gun stores, and shooting ranges. Ask all NRA members you know to VOTE FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT ACTION CANDIDATES. 3. A few advertising dollars go a long way when they tell the truth. Please send your donation to: Second Amendment Action 100 Heathwood Drive Liberty, SC 29657 4. Visit our web sites for further information: http://www.2ndamendment.net http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html http://www.nealknox.com/ (contains Heston interviews) ----- End Forwarded Message PLEASE READ, FOWARD, CROSS-POST, PRINT OUT, AND SHOW TO YOUR FRIENDS! POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES! PLACE IN YOUR MAILINGS. SPREAD THE WORD! Regards, Chris BeHanna PGP Key Available NJ-RKBA List Maintainer GUNS SAVE LIVES! behanna@fast.net (400,000 per year in the U.S. alone!) Lon Horiuchi, give yourself up! http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Ruby Ridge Shooter To Stand Trial - AP -Forwarded Date: 09 Jan 1998 08:52:19 -0700 Received: (qmail 18723 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 1998 01:18:11 -0000 Delivered-To: rkba-co-outgoing@majordomo.pobox.com Received: (qmail 18715 invoked by uid 516); 9 Jan 1998 01:18:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 18691 invoked from network); 9 Jan 1998 01:18:05 -0000 Received: from mailserv.rockymtn.net (HELO mg2.rockymtn.net) (166.93.205.12) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 9 Jan 1998 01:18:05 -0000 Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14]) by mg2.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA27488; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:16:56 -0700 (MST) Received: from helmetfish (166-93-69-107.rmi.net [166.93.69.107]) by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA14634; Thu, 8 Jan 1998 18:16:53 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <34B57A0D.1C44@rmi.net> Organization: Global Neighborhood Watch (http://www.rmi.net/~hlmtfish) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Posted to rkba-co by "C. F. Inston" ----------------------- 01/07/1998 19:42 EST Ruby Ridge Shooter To Stand Trial BONNERS FERRY, Idaho (AP) -- An FBI sharpshooter must stand trial on a state manslaughter charge in the death of white separatist Randy Weaver's wife in the 1992 siege at Ruby Ridge, a judge ruled Wednesday. Magistrate Judge Quentin Harden said there was probable cause to bring Lon Horiuchi to trial for firing the shot that killed Vicki Weaver during the 11-day siege at the mountain cabin. Harden scheduled a Feb. 13 arraignment before state Judge James Michaud. Boundary County Prosecutor Denise Woodbury filed the involuntary manslaughter charge in August. The Justice Department decided in 1994 against prosecuting Horiuchi on federal charges and upheld the decision last year after a long review. U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge is scheduled to hear arguments Monday from Horiuchi's lawyers in Boise that the case should be transferred to federal court. Harden, who could have dismissed the charge, ruled after reviewing briefs submitted last month on whether Horiuchi was negligent, reckless or careless in firing the shot. In Wednesday's ruling, he made no comment on the reason for his decision. Lawyers for Horiuchi have argued that the state had failed to meet its burden of proof that Horiuchi was grossly negligent, or that ``standards of care'' had been violated. If the case moves to federal court, Horiuchi's lawyers could seek to dismiss the case there, said Mike Weland, a Boundary County spokesman. Justice Department and FBI officials wouldn't comment on Wednesday's ruling. Private lawyers hired by the Justice Department to represent Horiuchi also refused to discuss the case. David Nevin, a Boise attorney who represents Kevin Harris, a friend of the Weavers who was involved in the standoff, said he hoped the ruling would help make federal agents more accountable for their actions. ``My feeling all along has been that not only Mr. Horiuchi, but others who gave him orders, should be prosecuted,'' Nevin said. ``My only other reaction is disappointment that the charge against Mr. Horiuchi isn't more serious, and that the people above him are not sharing the criminal responsibility.'' If convicted of involuntary manslaughter, Horiuchi could face 10 years in prison. He has continued to work for the FBI. Horiuchi was among dozens of federal agents who surrounded the cabin. Weaver was being sought on an illegal-weapons charge. His 14-year-old son, Sam, and deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan also were killed in a gunfight at the outset of the siege. Horiuchi testified during a 1993 federal trial for Weaver and Harris that he accidentally shot Mrs. Weaver in the head while aiming at Harris, who was running into the cabin in northern Idaho. Mrs. Weaver was standing at the door holding her infant daughter when she was shot. Harris was wounded by the same bullet that passed through the door of the cabin and killed Mrs. Weaver. When Woodbury charged Horiuchi, she also filed state murder and assault charges against Harris in Degan's slaying and the wounding of another federal agent. Harden dismissed those charges in October because Harris already had been cleared of murder and other charges in the 1993 federal trial. Harden said the state charges violated an Idaho law that bars prosecution of someone who already has faced prosecution in another state, territory or country. A $10 million lawsuit filed by Harris against the federal government is pending. Weaver settled a similar lawsuit last year for $3.1 million. -- Charles 'Chuck' Inston Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107, "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching" For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Important Gun Statistics -Forwarded Date: 09 Jan 1998 08:54:47 -0700 Received: from mcfeely.concentric.net (mcfeely.concentric.net [207.155.184.83]) by darius.concentric.net (8.8.8/(97/11/17 5.8)) id KAA08075; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:26:02 -0500 (EST) [1-800-745-2747 The Concentric Network] Errors-To: Received: from default (ts001d07.chi-il.concentric.net [206.173.185.19]) by mcfeely.concentric.net (8.8.8) id KAA19590; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 10:18:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980109091444.007a4c10@pop3.concentric.net> X-Sender: jkoenig@pop3.concentric.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The only way you can defend the Constitution and your right to bear arms is= to have facts which will support your arguments. The following was printed= in Investors Business Daily on 1/8/97 and I believe you should add it to= your arsenal! Take care! Jack Koenig By MORGAN 0. REYNOLDS & H. STERLING BURNEFf Nationally, gun-rights advocates have been on the defensive since the early= '90s. But in the states, where the fight against crime is won or lost, they= re winning the debate. That s because they have the facts on their side. Thirty-one states now let citizens carry concealed weapons =97 up from just= nine states in =9186. Have these "right-to-carry" laws made the public= safer, or have they caused a sharp drop in public safety, as opponents= warned? The standard argument against "concealed carry" laws is that there is no= good reason for the average Joe to carry a gun. But federal courts have= ruled that police aren t obliged to protect individuals from crime. That= means citizens are ultimately responsible for their own defense. But do concealed weapons deter crime? Criminals commit 10 million violent= crimes a year. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck found that= victims use handguns about 1.9 million times in self-defense. Criminals weigh the costs of the crime against the benefits. You don t have= to be a criminal mastermind to know that the possibility of a concealed= weapon tilts the odds in the victim s favor. Research shows that robbery= and rape victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to be= injured as those who don t. A recent study by John Lott and David Mustard of the University of Chicago= published in the Journal of Legal Studies bears this out. They found that= concealed handgun laws reduced murder by 8.5% and severe assault by 7% from= 1977 to =9192. Had "right-to-carry" laws been in effect throughout the= country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders and 60,000 fewer= assaults every year. Vermont has long had the least restrictive firearms-carry laws. Citizens= there can carry guns either openly or concealed without any permit. Perhaps= in part because of its liberal gun policies, Vermont has among the lowest= violent crime numbers in the country. In 1980, when murders and robberies in the U.S. had soared to 10 and 251 per= 100,000 people, respectively, Vermont s murder rate was 22% of the national= average and its robbery rate was 15%. In 1996, Vermont s crime rates were among the lowest in the country: 25% of= the national murder rate, 8% of the national robbery rate. Another objection to concealed-carry laws is that they ll boost impulse= killings =97 fostering a "wild West" mentality with more shootings and= deaths as people vent their anger with pistols instead of fists. Yet FBI= data show that killings stemming from arguments are falling as a share of= all homicides. In fact, concealed-weapon permit holders are involved in fewer incidents= than off-duty police officers. Consider also: Dade County, Fla., kept detailed records for six years. Of 21,000 carry= permit holders, there was no reported incident of a permit holder= injuring an innocent person. Virginia issued more than 50,000 permits since it passed a= right-to-carry law in =9195. In that time, not one permit holder= has been convicted of a crime, and violent crime has= dropped. Opponents are left to argue that concealed-carry laws will put guns in= untrained hands and accidents will go up. But there has been no rise in accidental shootings in counties with= right-to-carry laws. Nationwide, there are about 1,400 accidental firearms= deaths annually =97 a figure far lower than the number of deaths blamed on= medical errors or car accidents. And data show that civilians are even more careful with firearms than police= officers are. There are only about 30 mistaken civilian shootings in the= U.S. each year. The police commit more than three times as many mistaken= killings as civilians. In fact, the death rate from firearms has dropped in the last 20 years even= as gun ownership has more than doubled and 22 states have passed= right-to-carry laws. The fatal firearm accident rate has dropped more than 19% in the last= decade, and the number of gun-related accidents among children fell to an= all-time low of 185 in =9194 =97 down 64% since =9175. Keeping honest, law-abiding people unarmed and at the mercy of armed and= violent criminals was never a good idea. In the gun policy debate,= gun-rights advocates can argue honestly that a general concealed-carry law= is sound public policy. Morgan 0. Reynolds is director of the National Center for Policy Analysis= Criminal Justice Center and an economics professor at Texas A&M University.= H. Sterling Burnett is a policy analyst for the National Center for Policy= Analysis. 0000,0000,ffffJack Koenig 8080,8080,8080Impact Voters of America 8080,0000,8080 8080,8080,8080Communications without intelligence is noise. Intelligence without communications is irrelevant! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: New to speak Date: 09 Jan 1998 15:26:20 -0700 Maybe of interest to some... [Image] [Image] [Image] Right-wingers landing in Utah County [Image] Eagle Forum meets at UVSC Saturday [Image] [Image] Last updated 01/09/1998, 11:21 a.m. MT By Jeffrey P. Haney Deseret News staff writer PROVO — Daniel New facetiously drawls that his 80-hour work week is dedicated to "fighting the government." "I think I'm going to have to cut back to 12 hours a day," New joked during in an interview with the Deseret News from his Texas home. "What I'm fighting for affects more people than Kelly Flynn and Heather Faulkiner ever will," he said. "Somebody has to fight the fight for the legal precedent." New's overture about waging a federal war may by intended as tongue-in-cheek, but he is grimly serious. He has headed full-steam into a legal battle with the U.S. Department of Defense, intending to prove that an allegiance to the United Nations violates intentions of the Constitution. He has crisscrossed the country, appearing on the air waves and chatting at conservative coalition conventions, stumping for support of his son, Michael, who was court-martialed in 1996 for refusing to wear an insignia of the U.N. on his Army uniform. New will speak Saturday at the Eagle Forum's 7th annual state convention held at Utah Valley State College. Keynote speakers at the 9 a.m. event include such right-wing political figures as New, author John Stormer, Eagle Forum executive director Kris Ardizone and the Sutherland Institute's Gaylord Swim. Stormer's book, "None Dare Call It Treason," sold more than 6 million copies in 1964. Some 34 years ago, the pastor and administrator of a Christian school quit his job as an editor of a leading electrical mag- azine to devote his life to writing and conservative political activism. An update of his book will be published this year. Cost for the conference is $25 at the door. Registration begins at 8:30 a.m. Daniel New's foray into the battle began in 1995, when Michael, serving as a medic in Germany, told his superior officers he would not don a blue beret and shoulder patch emblazoned with U.N. identifying marks. Supporters of the United States as a sovereign nation, including the New family, say the U.N. is part of the conspiracy to form the New World Order, a plan to create a one-world government operated by powerful nations and financial interests. Michael New believes he enlisted in an eight-year term to protect fight encroachment of foreign soils. He didn't enlist in the U.S. Army to become a foreign power's peace-keeping stormtrooper, his father said. Micheal New, now a nursing student, shuns the media spotlight. He doesn't talk to reporters about his case. He was prepared to go to prison for his convictions, but not to be famous, his father said. "He said, 'I'm not a mercenary.' It just went against his grain instinctively," he said. "He took an oath to support the United States, not the U.N., and the U.N. is by law a foreign power." New's attorneys cite Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution in his defense. They claim the order to wear U.N. clothing violates regulations governing Army uniforms and insignia. Members of the armed forces, they say, are prohibited from wearing medals or adornments from other nations on their regulation uniforms. More than $500,000 has been spent in his defense, including legal fees, producing a $20 video proclaiming his innocence and creating a home page on the Internet at www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8817. The appeal will be argued on its merits for the first time in February or March in the Army's Court of Criminal Appeals. New says his son's legal defense is largely paid for by a grassroots effort contributing to the Michael New Defense Fund. The family receives a slice of the donations for living expenses, and New insists they are frugal with the donated money. He says he usually receives no money other than travel costs for his speaking dates. While here in Salt Lake City, he will stay overnight with a family belonging to the Eagle Forum. Most supporters live in smaller cities and towns, where the political climate is largely conservative. More people have sent money and letters from Ogden than New York City, he said. "We have a deep-seated concern for freedom both as individuals and as a nation and for rights we have in the Constitution," he said. Karen Clark, vice president of the state forum, said the group invited New to speak to the expected 200 convention attendees because of an interest in his son's case and his thoughts on the U.N.'s political reach. [Image] [Image] Return to front page [Image] -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." -- Aristotle. Quoted by John Trenchard and Walter Moyle "An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy" [London, 1697] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: RNC/ Democrats Return Money / FEC Reports Online -Forwarded Date: 09 Jan 1998 16:44:47 -0700 Received: from web185c.bbnplanet.com (web185c.bbnplanet.com [207.121.186.185]) by web185c.bbnplanet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA23635; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:57:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from BRONZE.RNC.ORG by BRONZE.RNC.ORG (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8b) with spool id 16172 for PRESSLIST@BRONZE.RNC.ORG; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:56:24 -0800 Received: from web185c.bbnplanet.com (web185c.bbnplanet.com [207.121.186.185]) by web185c.bbnplanet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA23528 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:56:22 -0800 (PST) Approved-By: shenry2@IX.NETCOM.COM Received: from dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.3]) by web185c.bbnplanet.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA23509 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 14:52:27 -0800 (PST) Received: (from smap@localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id QAA01706 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 16:58:37 -0600 (CST) Received: from unknown(207.94.140.67) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma001690; Fri Jan 9 16:58:34 1998 X-Sender: shenry2@popd.ix.netcom.com (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message-ID: <2.2.32.19980109230013.0098c244@popd.ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: Sean Henry Sender: RNC Press List IN CASE YOU MISSED IT... January 9, 1998 DEMOCRAT CAMPAIGN FINANCE SCANDAL SHIFTS FROM PACIFIC RIM TO THE MIDDLE EAST! The Democratic National Committee has once again been forced to return a huge chunk of apparently illegal money, this time from the Middle East. "Absolute serendipity," is how lawyers for an Ohio company describe a $100,000 donation to the DNC -- the same week American diplomats helped arrange a meeting between the company's lobbyists and top Saudi Arabian government officials. Transcripts from an Ohio court case obtained by The Cleveland Plain Dealer show that lobbyists for Global Resources Management, Inc. arranged "meetings with members of the royal (Saudi) family," in August, 1996 with the help of the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia. As the Associated Press reported January 8: "On August 12, 1996, Global Resources gave the DNC a $100,000 check at a fund-raiser for President Clinton's birthday. Testimony from Mohamed El-Naggar, an Egyptian national who co-owns the company, indicated the $100,000 was money he had given to Global." The State Department "declined to comment," on the AP report, which included testomony from Global Resources lobbyist David Wimer: "Wimer said he and fellow Global Resources lobbyist, former Democratic Rep. Steve Solarz of New York, met with Saudi Defense and Aviation Minister Prince Sultan in August, 1996." Despite the apparent illegality of the donation, the DNC hung on to the $100,000 for as long as possible: "The DNC returned the money after the testimony was reported, citing 'lingering uncertainty' about the source of the contribution." The report raises new and unanswered questions: 1) Did anyone at the DNC contact the State Department in the Global Resources case, like former DNC Chairman Don Fowler contacted the CIA on behalf of businessman Roger Tamraz? 2) Who solicited Global Resources' $100,000 donation to the DNC? 3) Was the contribution made in exchange for diplomatic or political influence to settle a private business deal on behalf of yet another big-money donor? __________________________________________________ RNC News Release January 9, 1998 RNC CHAIRMAN PRAISES INTERNET POSTING OF FEC REPORTS "A big step toward full, wide and immediate disclosure" WASHINGTON - The Chairman of the Republican National Committee, today praised the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for their decision to publish campaign finance reports on their Internet site. "This development is a big step toward our goal of full, wide and immediate campaign finance disclosure," said RNC Chairman Jim Nicholson. The FEC web site allows Internet users to look up reports on federal candidates, political parties and political action committees. Until now, people would have to travel to Washington to examine the records, or pay for an expensive subscription service to do so. "We have long believed that immediate and full disclosure is crucial to restoring the credibility of political campaigns," Nicholson noted. All 1997-98 reports filed by PACs, political parties, presidential and House campaigns are available for viewing. Reports dating back to 1993 for PACs, parties and presidential committees will be available in the coming weeks. The FEC's web site address is http://www.fec.gov (Play the RNC Weekly Trivia Contest at http://www.rnc.org/cafe/quiz.html) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Why Guns? - by L. Neil Smith Date: 11 Jan 1998 00:33:46 -0700 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi all! I know many of you have already seen this, and I apologize for the "rerun". But Neil's article is so good that I want to do my part to make sure it gets to as wide an audience as possible. WHY GUNS? -- by L. Neil Smith -- From the "Webley Page" Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has _always_ determined the way I vote. People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single-issue thinker, and a single-issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center. Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put. If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, _anything_ -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your _friend_ no matter what he tells you. If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims. What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about _you_. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him? If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it? If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with _anything_? If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in _jail_? Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of. He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about? And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about _you_, and it has been, all along. Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a _woman_, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have? On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries? Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it. And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter. But it isn't true, is it? =================================== L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of _Bretta Martyn_, _The Probability Broach_, _The Crystal Empire_, _Henry Martyn_, _The Lando Calrissian Adventures_, and _Pallas_. He is also an NRA Life Member and founder of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5 iQEVAwUBNLh12dfaQ3zqMQjXAQHh8Qf/V0FlMWmBwSo3RTEeqYkwv5NvNNdVQUxU HLaDu8Qjs0kNUE+PY/5voaNxSzCY7WJnHZnBChkdi6Ok6CT/poJbh3k2XqdTDSlF 7nAem/DHgpxu03QkVFyPlI4g3xnsjX3fZ43vGow7qjib0D4dEGoYuexlr9Yl7HLx FykumwwBgL5Q0/9sSQmLjeuzsm9lWYdPm/Q/FTR28u9E9JQqsaYY+oK3o4j0344n T2RsmIev1RK71P2alV0es22kbOfWvzgHduVkUTPDuX9UbfQys7A0k6oqp4DcBapH 2oW15pJ3uGV6QwZPE5hSgFeS49madr8VREz2GQeBlMNlNMqTpl94fA== =88HW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: BATF -- Books(?), Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms Date: 12 Jan 1998 01:53:07 -0700 I have not spoken to Mr. Ross or to the PROponent personally to verify this, but contact info is included, and my source is trusted and reliable. I wonder if _now_ the ACLU will realize that the First and Second Amendments are connected...... Sarah Message-ID: <67cgt7$4uf@xring.cs.umd.edu> Newsgroups: rec.guns [More Headers] I just received this from a fellow who got it off the Ohio RKBA list. I would be interested in hearing from anyone with a similar experience. Two producers in the national media are planning 1998 pieces on the phenomenon of this book. This is the kind of info they need. JR ************************************************************************** The PROponent 3953 Indianola Ave Columbus, OH 43214 (614) 268-0122 Volume 9 November, 1997 Number 11 BOOK CONTROL ... How many years have we been screaming that it ISN'T just about "gun control", it's all about RIGHTS CONTROL! We have more proof. One of the dealers at our gun shows goes by the name of "Winchester Man". You may have seen him or even bought something from him. He has a bunch of gun socks and books for sale among other items. But the particular item of interest was the stack of books "Unintended Consequences" he was selling. At this particular gun show (not one of ours nor in Ohio) several "suits" showed up at his table and indicated that they were unhappy with him selling the book. They identified themselves as ATF. Apparently they told him they couldn't FORCE him to stop selling the novel, but he noted that they strongly seemed to imply that they could make life tough for him if he didn't comply with their wishes. Most PRO members already know that this book is highly critical of some of the BATF mentality we've seen in recent times. So this is what it comes down to. It's not just "gun control" any more, but "book control" as well. This goes right along with "Internet control" and every other recent attack on the Bill of Rights by so-called "federal" law enforcement. But here's the sad part. Sure Winchester Man is pro-gun, but he's not an activist like we are. At this point in time he is still just an ordinary business man trying to make a dollar. And he told this editor that he is not about to buck the wishes of the ATF, illegal or no. He confided that he didn't make that much on the books anyway, so that once he had them all sold, he wasn't getting any more. This is the insidious part of government licensing, isn't it? First, they tell you that "whatever" NEEDS to be "regulated" through licensing, but once in place, this suddenly becomes a long lever through which pressure can be applied to honest businessmen/women. And I'll tell you what kept going through my mind as "Winchester Man" was telling me how the sales of that book "weren't that important". Inside my head it wasn't Winchester Man talking, but some German shopkeeper back in the thirties. He was telling me that he didn't want "trouble" from the Brown Shirts and even though they didn't have the right to choose his customers, only a small fraction of his business was from Jews anyway, so it didn't matter. It is PRO's suggestion to Winchester Man and anyone else trying to avoid "trouble" from the socialist-fascist faction in our government that they dig out a good history book and take a gander at just the photographs...nothing else... of what Germany looked like by the end of WW II. THEN, having done that, come back and tell us exactly how much "trouble" those shopkeepers saved themselves in the end by going along with Nazi policy? The problem here seems to be that while Winchester Man has read the book he is selling, somehow, the history of tyrants contained therein seems to have not made a connection to the present. But there IS a connection. Those who do not remember history are often doomed to repeat it. ************************************************************************* Thanks for any help. JR Read the book UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. Reviews are at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D1888118040 and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/95/123195vs.htm - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Training course -Forwarded Date: 12 Jan 1998 10:33:01 -0700 Received: (qmail 945 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 1998 19:55:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 921 invoked by uid 516); 11 Jan 1998 19:55:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 898 invoked from network); 11 Jan 1998 19:55:13 -0000 Received: from growl.pobox.com (208.210.124.27) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 11 Jan 1998 19:55:13 -0000 Received: from mail2.rockymtn.net (ns2.rockymtn.net [166.93.8.2]) by growl.pobox.com (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA11986 for ; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 14:55:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from 166-93-76-223.rmi.net (166-93-76-223.rmi.net [166.93.76.223]) by mail2.rockymtn.net (8.8.5/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA18631; Sun, 11 Jan 1998 12:33:51 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199801111933.MAA18631@mail2.rockymtn.net> X-Sender: davisda@rmi.net X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.1.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Posted to rkba-co by Douglas Davis ----------------------- The Colorado Springs Police Department and the Pikes Peak Chapter of the Firearms Coalition of Colorado have teamed up to present the following FREE safety course to 'the children'. With all the emphasis on 'the children', here is a chance _do something_ to counter the anti-gunners!! The course description, location, and signup information is contained below. Please do all you can to make this service a success. Feel free to copy and distribute and get as many of 'the children' involved as possible. And yes, there is a lot riding on this program for future involvent of the CSPD regarding firearms safety instruction. doug HOME FIREARM SAFETY COURSE Sponsored By Colorado Springs Police Department And Pikes Peak Chapter of the Firearm Coalition of Colorado COURSE DESCRIPTION: The Home Firearm Safety Course is a 4-hour Public Service Course designed to present the basic knowledge, skills and explains the attitude necessary for the safe handling and storing of guns in the home. Even if a family does not own a firearm, a neighbor may. It is estimated that half the homes in America have guns and that there are about 200-800 million guns nationwide. Many of these firearms are family heirlooms, antiques and war souvenirs; therefore, it is possible that every person may come in contact with a gun while visiting a friend or neighbor. This course prepares children to handle such chance encounters in a safe way. Parents also learn how to teach safe and responsible manners to their children in case they encounter an unsupervised firearm at a friend's home. The objective of this course is to teach the basic knowledge, skills and attitude necessary for the safe and proper handling of air guns and firearms. This course includes training on gun parts and operation, ammunition, safety, cleaning, storage and unloading procedures. The course will also familiarize participants with procedures and guidelines for storing pistols, rifles, and shotguns in the home. The concept of "discovery learning" - hands on learning - is used. A special emphasis on children and gun safety will be the focus of this instruction. This is NOT a Hunter Safety Course and does NOT involve any live ammunition or the firing of any firearm. CLASS PARTICIPANTS SHOULD NOT BRING ANY FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION TO THIS CLASS. WHO MAY ATTEND: Children age 11 to 15 years old, which MUST be accompanied by a Parent or Legal Guardian. Children age 16 to 17 years old parents are requested to attend. WHEN AND WHERE: Saturday, January 17th Police Operation Center Community Room 705 S. Nevada Ave. Time: 9AM - 1 P.M. OR Saturday, January 24th Police Operations Center Community Room 705 S. Nevada Ave. Time: 6PM - 10 P.M. TO SIGN UP: You must RSVP prior to the class by calling 444-7281. This is a FREE community service by The Colorado Springs Police Department and The Firearms Coalition of Colorado. ****************** Firearms, self-defense, and other information, with LINKS are available at: http://shell.rmi.net/~davisda Latest additions are found in the group NEW with GOA and other alerts under the heading ALERTS. For those without browser capabilities, send [request index.txt] to davisda@rmi.net and an index of the files at this site will be e-mailed to you. Then send [request ] and the requested file will be sent as a message. Various shareware programs are archived at: ftp://shell.rmi.net/pub2/davisda To receive the contents of the FTP site, send [request index.ftp] to davisda@rmi.net FTP capabilities needed to retrieve programs. ******************** For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: BATF -- Books(?), Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms -Forwarded Date: 12 Jan 1998 11:33:52 -0700 Received: from terra.aros.net (terra.aros.net [207.173.16.10]) by mars.aros.net (8.8.7/8.8.4) with ESMTP id BAA03990; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 01:34:32 -0700 (MST) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by terra.aros.net (8.8.7/8.6.12) id BAA09997 for righter-list-safe-outgoing; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 01:53:26 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: terra.aros.net: majordom set sender to owner-righter-list using -f Received: from mars.aros.net (mars.aros.net [207.173.16.20]) by terra.aros.net (8.8.7/8.6.12) with ESMTP id BAA09993 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 01:53:22 -0700 Received: from sarahtho (xm1-24.slc.aros.net [207.173.24.169]) by mars.aros.net (8.8.7/8.8.4) with SMTP id BAA03949; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 01:34:05 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980112015307.00836890@aros.net> X-Sender: righter@aros.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Cc: utah-firearms@xmission.com, lsac@ezlink.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-righter-list@aros.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: righter-list@aros.net I have not spoken to Mr. Ross or to the PROponent personally to verify this, but contact info is included, and my source is trusted and reliable. I wonder if _now_ the ACLU will realize that the First and Second Amendments are connected...... Sarah Message-ID: <67cgt7$4uf@xring.cs.umd.edu> Newsgroups: rec.guns [More Headers] I just received this from a fellow who got it off the Ohio RKBA list. I would be interested in hearing from anyone with a similar experience. Two producers in the national media are planning 1998 pieces on the phenomenon of this book. This is the kind of info they need. JR ************************************************************************** The PROponent 3953 Indianola Ave Columbus, OH 43214 (614) 268-0122 Volume 9 November, 1997 Number 11 BOOK CONTROL ... How many years have we been screaming that it ISN'T just about "gun control", it's all about RIGHTS CONTROL! We have more proof. One of the dealers at our gun shows goes by the name of "Winchester Man". You may have seen him or even bought something from him. He has a bunch of gun socks and books for sale among other items. But the particular item of interest was the stack of books "Unintended Consequences" he was selling. At this particular gun show (not one of ours nor in Ohio) several "suits" showed up at his table and indicated that they were unhappy with him selling the book. They identified themselves as ATF. Apparently they told him they couldn't FORCE him to stop selling the novel, but he noted that they strongly seemed to imply that they could make life tough for him if he didn't comply with their wishes. Most PRO members already know that this book is highly critical of some of the BATF mentality we've seen in recent times. So this is what it comes down to. It's not just "gun control" any more, but "book control" as well. This goes right along with "Internet control" and every other recent attack on the Bill of Rights by so-called "federal" law enforcement. But here's the sad part. Sure Winchester Man is pro-gun, but he's not an activist like we are. At this point in time he is still just an ordinary business man trying to make a dollar. And he told this editor that he is not about to buck the wishes of the ATF, illegal or no. He confided that he didn't make that much on the books anyway, so that once he had them all sold, he wasn't getting any more. This is the insidious part of government licensing, isn't it? First, they tell you that "whatever" NEEDS to be "regulated" through licensing, but once in place, this suddenly becomes a long lever through which pressure can be applied to honest businessmen/women. And I'll tell you what kept going through my mind as "Winchester Man" was telling me how the sales of that book "weren't that important". Inside my head it wasn't Winchester Man talking, but some German shopkeeper back in the thirties. He was telling me that he didn't want "trouble" from the Brown Shirts and even though they didn't have the right to choose his customers, only a small fraction of his business was from Jews anyway, so it didn't matter. It is PRO's suggestion to Winchester Man and anyone else trying to avoid "trouble" from the socialist-fascist faction in our government that they dig out a good history book and take a gander at just the photographs...nothing else... of what Germany looked like by the end of WW II. THEN, having done that, come back and tell us exactly how much "trouble" those shopkeepers saved themselves in the end by going along with Nazi policy? The problem here seems to be that while Winchester Man has read the book he is selling, somehow, the history of tyrants contained therein seems to have not made a connection to the present. But there IS a connection. Those who do not remember history are often doomed to repeat it. ************************************************************************* Thanks for any help. JR Read the book UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. Reviews are at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D1888118040 and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/95/123195vs.htm ------------- To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to righter-list-request@aros.net with the line unsubscribe righter-list in the body. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Re: R2A! PA-RKBA! FYI (fwd) -Forwarded Date: 12 Jan 1998 15:17:40 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id KAA10249; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 10:11:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma010225; Mon Jan 12 10:11:47 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@fs1.mainstream.com Reply-To: eschelon@eschelon.seanet.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Chris, [...] In Pittsburgh, hizzoner da mare wanted to set up surveillance cameras in "high crime" areas. [...] It should be noted that the antis can usually be identified by their lack of ability, or refusal to identify the cause of a problem, and their equally lacking ability to figure out a solution that doesn't punish everybody. First, they will observe that an inanimate object was used in the commission of a crime. They then figure that if all such objects are eliminated that the problem of that particular crime will just simply vanish. We know better. Their thinking is two dimensional, it does not consider the third object or dimension: motivation. Crime happens in most instances - in my estimation - when three things are in consonance: a reason a willingness to hurt others an enabling motive - usually the lack of punishment, and it appears, the ease with which a crime may be successfully committed. The antis see their solution as a straight line cause-and- effect: The tool caused the crime, death and/or injury were the effect. They neglect to consider the basic reference here: The prime mover - the human element. If we were to remove objects from the face of the earth simply on the premises of the anti's arguments, we would soon be left with no planet upon which to argue this point. The second thing here, is that the antis resort to the lowest common denominator as the standard by which any who live in 'society', as a whole, are judged - excepting those who possess great wealth or power. Therefore, the will to place cameras throughout the 'bad' section of town. Try placing them in the 'good' section of town - or at the ritz. Hence, since all of 'society' is suspect of possible criminal behavior or of doing so in the future, they must be denied the most basic of Rights - self-defence. This then must be a crtical argument to be applied to _their_ agument when it is raised: who is the criminal and why are the law abiding being punished for something they have not done? The corollary buttressing arguments to our position are written far and wide. One such corollary easily recalled is the fact of ownership of firearms by no less that 50 percent of the American citizenry, yet the fact of no massive crime wave by _those_ citizens is legend. It is only those who are not possessed of a modicum of respect for the laws and a better amount their fellow citizens, who are as criminals. And equally so, it is the antis who proclaim a solution to any problem is the removel of Rights to make all citizens more equal, but in essence victimizes those same citizens, for they are made to rely on laws which do nothing, and upon a police state which could care less about the citizen. Those so inclinded to rally for more police should remember one very important thing, that more police equals more taxes and litte else, and the one's calling are usually the one's who want no responsibility for their own lives - read: I refuse to carry an arm for my own self-protection. ET - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: [Fwd: The Not-So-Funny Clown] -Forwarded Date: 13 Jan 1998 08:38:09 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id XAA15786; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 23:11:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma015760; Mon Jan 12 23:10:59 1998 Message-Id: <34BADEE2.F18FDC99@inetnebr.com> Errors-To: listproc@fs1.mainstream.com Reply-To: lball@inetnebr.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------34E3B96A66E33111DF9D5AEF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------34E3B96A66E33111DF9D5AEF Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from unlinfo3.unl.edu (unlinfo3.unl.edu [129.93.1.18]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id VAA15855 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 21:10:25 -0600 (CST) Received: from oak.zilker.net (daemon@oak.zilker.net [198.252.182.129]) by unlinfo3.unl.edu (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA20481 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 21:05:51 -0600 (CST) Received: by oak.zilker.net (8.8.5/zilker.1.127) id VAA13134; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 21:08:13 -0600 (CST) Received: from mailhost.onramp.net by oak.zilker.net (8.8.5/zilker.1.127) id VAA13110; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 21:08:01 -0600 (CST) Received: from GOA-Texas.org (ppp11-1.hstntx.onramp.net [206.50.229.65]) by mailhost.onramp.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA05914; Mon, 12 Jan 1998 21:04:48 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <199801130304.VAA05914@mailhost.onramp.net> X-Mailer: Chris W. Stark's registered AK-Mail 3.0b [eng] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-texas-gun-owners@zilker.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@zilker.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by "Chris W. Stark" The Not-So-Funny Clown The notoriously anti-gun Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has teamed up with several other organizations, most notably Ronald McDonald House, on a project that will result in lessening of parental authority over school children's mental health treatment. The program will also result in pressure from school officials for parents to disarm themselves. The Team Up To Save Lives program is being marketed as an anti-suicide strategy for teachers in our schools, but after viewing the entire program, GOA has discovered that the underlying purpose of the program is to force parents, through guilt tactics, to voluntarily disarm themselves. What this program does is "educate" teachers to possible signs of "risk" in students, and then encourages them to refer students to the school counselors, who are advised by the program to take action. Sometimes these actions can consist of your child being treated psychologically and psychiatrically without parental consent, if the school official thinks such treatment is warranted. If and when your child is deemed "at risk" (and may be deemed so by virtually ANY behavioral change), you may be visited by school officials who are instructed to get you to dispose of the firearms in your home, so as to protect the child from him/herself. The program, which GOA has viewed on CD-Rom, contains video clip examples for teachers to effectively employ guilt tactics in order to frighten parents into relinquishing their firearms. The entire program is nothing more than a front for liberal anti-gun rhetoric to be fed to the American family. One GOA staffer even took all four teachers' exams included with the program and earned a certificate after reading only three of the four test sections. How, you may ask? He simply answered anti-gun and pro-government intervention, receiving a perfect score! Gun owners should protect themselves and their families from such naive attempts at thought control. The push for "conformity for the sake of our children" is one more attempt to drag us into an era where the state, not the family, dictates how our children are raised. Gun owners need to resist the attempts of clowns like Ronald McDonald and his liberal cronies to dictate our parenting. **************************************************************** Gun Owners of America Chris W. Stark - Texas Representative P.O. Box 1924 Crosby, TX 77532-1924 Voice: (713) 217-0649 e-mail: Director@GOA-Texas.org Visit our Web Page at: http://www.GOA-Texas.org "The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington." "A Voice for Texas Gun Owners!" **************************************************************** "No class or group or party in Germany could escape its share of responsibility for the abandonment of the democratic Republic and the advent of Adolf Hitler. The cardinal error of the Germans who opposed Nazism was their failure to unite against it. ...the 63% of the German people who expressed their opposition to Hitler were much too divided and shortsighted to combine against a common danger which they must have known would overwhelm them unless they united, HOWEVER TEMPORARY, to stamp it out." -William L. Shirer, author; "The rise and fall of the Third Reich" **p.259** ...they who do not learn from History are DOOMED to repeat it!! -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. --------------34E3B96A66E33111DF9D5AEF-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Sports Illustrated and g Date: 14 Jan 1998 22:40:24 -0700 >From: INTERNET:jeffb@ilx.com, INTERNET:jeffb@ilx.com >To: Alan Chwick, AJChwick_Family > >Date: 1/14/98 3:53 PM > >RE: Message from Internet > >At the very end of the January 12th, 1998 edition of Sports Illustrated, >there is an article titled "Wishful Thinking" by Rick Reilly, the article is >sub-titled "Our intrepid reporter wouldn't want to put words in anybody's >mouth, but..." The article begins "Please, please, please let us read these >quotes in 1998. The article is a selection of hypothetical quotes from >sports figures that were obviously meant to be humorous, until you get to >near the end. Then comes this quote that he's hoping for "I guess I just >couldn't stand it anymore, seeing schoolkids get shot up with >semiautomatics. I guarantee you, nobody I hunt with needs a 9mm Heckler and >Koch semiautomatic to shoot a rabbit. We're done with them. Starting today >we'll work to ban all semi- and fully automaitc guns. We need to get a >whole lot of blood off our hands." - Marion Hammer, NRA President. I am >growing tired of this, I should be able to read a sports magazine for God's >sake without putting up with this. I'm writing Sports Illustrated to >complain and informing them that I will NOT be renewing my subscription >(ESPN magazine will do me fine, thank you). I encourage everyone to write >and complain about this, this is a magazine kids read and shouldn't be used >to influence them in this way. You can write to Sports Illustrated by >sending a letter with your name, address, and home telephone number to: > >The Editor, Sports Illustrated >Time & Life Building >New York, NY 10020-1393 > >or you can fax letters to 212-467-4049, you can also email letters to >letters@si.timeinc.com > >I highly encourage you all to write and let your voices be heard, feel free >to forward this message to any appropriate mailing groups or other lists. > >Michael G. Moen >michael.moen@asu.edu > >------End forward message--------------------------- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: MAYOR ALBANO COMMENTS on the CONSTITUTION!! Date: 14 Jan 1998 18:01:00 -0700 See email addresses in the last included message by Ken Larsen, before the message with the FAX number. - Scott Springfield, MA WHYN radio 560 AM 1/13/98 6:30pm Springfield Mayor talking with a caller about a proposed trigger lock ordinence and the U.S. Constitution. Ok folks, now I am downright angry. I was just listening to Mayor Albano on the Dan York radio show. Someone called in and asked him about the constitutionality of the trigger lock ordinance. I can't remember word for word but it went something like this: Caller: Where in the constitution do you find the right to pass a law like this? Albano: Oh, you don't believe that ...... Caller: The constitution says our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Some discussion back and forth about about the 2nd amendment and then: Albano: There IS NO right to own guns, thats why you need permits and FID cards etc. Arrrrrrrggggggggggg!!!!! (that was me screeming at the radio) Also, when this caller was talking about the constitution, York was making comments that this guy sounded like a McVeigh or a right wing radical. Folks, these people think the constitution is nothing more that a piece of toilet paper. This is what we are up against. God help us. Bob Powell Bob, I hope this meets your approval, cuz the send button has already been pressed! I sent this to another list "Fratrum". If you have any problem with this, Please let me know. I take full responsibility for this message that was sent. I received this message from Bob Powell this evening. I conversed with Bob about this, & we would like to see the following things take place: 1. E-mail the mayor and let him know that there is a right to own guns!! Tell him that he needs to, at the very least, read the constitution if he is an elected official. 2. Follow up with a phone call or letter. If you don't believe that the elected officials are ignoring the constitution, this should do the trick for you. Let's let them know that THE PEOPLE are not ignorant!!! Mayors Office Springfield City Hall 36 Court Street Springfield, MA 01103 413-787-6100 e-mail: mayor@largo.ci.springfield.ma.us WHY BE POLITICALLY CORRECT, WHEN YOU CAN BE RIGHT? Jay Shore Dear Mayor Albano, I just read on the Internet a curious post quoting you as saying in a radio interview something like: "There IS NO right to own guns." Please tell me that was a terrible misquote and that we are still living in an America where politicians take an oath and have an idea what the Constitution is about. Thank you for your reassurance of a concerned citizen of faraway Utah. Dr. Ken Larsen Cc: wfoley@largo.ci.springfield.ma.us, bwilliams@largo.ci.springfield.ma.us, wboyle@largo.ci.springfield.ma.us, bgarvey@largo.ci.springfield.ma.us, bgarde@largo.ci.springfield.ma.us, rpellegrino@largo.ci.springfield.ma.us, trooke@largo.ci.springfield.ma.us, tryan@largo.ci.springfield.ma.us, bsantaniello@largo.ci.springfield.ma.us ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." US Constitution, 2nd Amendment. Similar language is contained in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: PART THE FIRST, Article XVII. "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence." Could anything be more plain? Can those words possibly be twisted to allow government to mandate trigger locks on privately-owned arms? Has everyone in Springfield lost their copy of the Constitution? Please, please, reread the Second Amendment and then reread Article VI, Paragraph 3. "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;" Similar words are in the Massachusetts Constitution. Are not Mayors and City councilors included in Art VI, para 3? Are they not required to support the Constitution? Can they keep their oath to support the Constitution while supporting an unconstitutional city ordinance that infringes the right of the citizens of Springfield "to keep and bear arms"? Please explain, or apologize for this oversight and reaffirm your oath to support ALL of the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment. Dr. Ken Larsen kencan@xmission.com Our thanks to everyone for coming through on this one. The mayor is receiving many more messages than I am sure he ever expected. We just received Mayor Michael Albano's fax # which is: FAX # 413-787-6104 Thanks to Jay Shore for tracking it down. If we could use up a few rolls of fax paper, that would help get our message across even more. Mayors Office Springfield City Hall 36 Court Street Springfield, MA 01103 413-787-6100 e-mail mayor@largo.ci.springfield.ma.us Karen - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: SKS seizure in California Date: 14 Jan 1998 18:01:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx wrote: Hey Mark. Get someone to call NRA Headquarters for info. California Attorney General has reversed his original ruling about SKS Sporters, made in 91, so that now they are illeagle. Caved under political pressure. That means that tens of thousands of California gun owners and dealers can now be charged with felony possession (2 years prison), or felony firearms sale (ten years prison). This popular model has been sold in CA for 5 or 6 years now. Owners may be forced to turn them in without compensation. Owners are subject to arrest, search and seisure of contraband. Attorney general has sent letters to all owners that they know of, all dealers, all law enforcement, and the manufacturer notifying them of the change. Local laws is empowered to confiscate records, and to track down owners who do not turn in their firearms. If CA gets away with this it will be comming soon to your state. Check this out then spread the word. If they try to confiscate could be a lot of dead law enforcement. Concord Bridge anyone, or will the sheep mearly roll over again? That is the big question. Keep me posted. (I understand that NRA in Sacramento is swamped with calls so you may want to try local). Xxxxxxxx - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Unbearable `Right to Bear Arms' Date: 16 Jan 1998 08:04:00 -0700 To respond to this article go to the Philadelphia Inquirer web site Commentary Unbearable `right to bear arms' The gun lobby is relying on fanciful readings of an obsolete amendment to attack gun control. By Theodore L. Gaillard Jr. How come it's always cited out of context, that infamous and sacred right "to keep and bear arms"? Philadelphia Inquirer January 15, 1998 'Unbearable `right to bear arms' The gun lobby is relying on fanciful readings of an obsolete amendment to attack gun control. By Theodore L. Gaillard Jr. How come it's always cited out of context, that infamous and sacred right "to keep and bear arms"? That's what gun manufacturers and the National Rifle Association did as they wrapped themselves, not just in the flag, but also in the Bill of Rights to trigger a gun-lobbyist revolt against the Brady Bill and the 1994 Federal Crime Control Bill. Why? Because one requires a background check of gun buyers and the other bans manufacture or transfer of semiautomatic assault weapons for civilian use. Meanwhile, we read of a Chicago policeman killed with an Intratec assault pistol. The banned TEC-9 32-shot semiautomatic handgun is still advertised on the Internet. And we remember the Narberth Shopping Center robbery, its fleeing suspects captured trying to unlimber AK-47 and M-14 assault rifles strapped to their bicycles. Gun lobbyists will probably resort to their customary insistence on (and misreading of) the Second Amendment if Mayor Rendell files a public nuisance lawsuit against gun manufacturers whose products flood the streets of Philadelphia and swell the tide of urban crime that drowns entire neighborhoods. But Ed Rendell, James and Sarah Brady, and the House of Representatives would have nothing to fear from NRA President Marion Hammer, first vice president Charlton Heston, Intratec and Smith & Wesson -- if people would just interpret the entire Second Amendment exactly as it was written and the way in which the founding fathers intended it to be read. Ratified in 1791, the complete Second Amendment recognized firearms as essential for defending the community: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In 1791, the United States had recently battled to win its independence from England. France still owned the vast Mississippi watershed. Another war with England would soon be fought. Yet even in 1791, this right to bear arms was seen as conditional. The introductory absolute phrase preceding the main clause sets the conditions for the people's right to keep and bear arms: to be able quickly to assemble into a local "well-regulated militia," lifting their smooth-bores down from over the fireplace in order to assemble and march off to defend "the security of [ their ] free State" against all aggressors. In 1998, however, the United States has a large active-duty military establishment. In addition, local National Guard units maintain armories stocked with government-supplied weapons, each pistol and M-16 assault rifle carefully registered when it is turned in after weekend and summer training periods. Today any additional "well-regulated militias" would be wasteful and irrelevant -- a state of affairs unforeseen in an anachronistic constitutional amendment that has not been updated in 207 years. We do have legal access to firearms. Those facing dangerous situations in the process of earning a livelihood can apply for concealed weapon permits. Buying a rifle to hunt deer is no problem. But there's an obvious difference between sporting rifles and high cyclic rate-of-fire military weapons specifically designed to suppress enemy defenses during beach assaults or on jungle patrols -- in short, quickly to disable or kill as many other human beings as possible. There is no justification for a civilian to own such an assault weapon -- pistol or rifle. As it is, we live in the most heavily armed society in history. The NRA itself lists 230 million guns in civilian possession -- close to one for every man, woman and child in the United States. And then we read that in the first five months of the Brady law, more than twice the regular number of gun applications were rejected in Philadelphia because the buyers had criminal records or charges pending. Scary. No wonder Mayor Rendell wants to do something about profligate and indiscriminate availability of firearms in this city -- a situation to which the Second Amendment is not applicable. I grew up with an arms historian stepfather, owned my first rifle by age 11, and in the Marine Corps earned my expert badge with an M-14. When discharged, I felt more than comfortable leaving defense of our country to our military and protection of our cities to the police -- for whom handgun and assault weapon proliferation poses a dire threat. The local militias of 1791 no longer form part of the defense structure of 1998, and a ban on the manufacture or transfer of specific types of assault weapons has justifiably been made law of the land. And, for public safety, there should be regulated control of all firearm distribution and mandatory ownership registration for both handguns and rifles. What about the Second Amendment? We owe it to ourselves and to our neighbors to read it. All of it. Carefully. Theodore L. Gaillard Jr. is a Philadelphia-based writer on military and economic affairs. NOTE: Someone was kind enough to provide the specific wording of the 2nd Amendment in the PA Constitution which reads--"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be questioned!" - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Another poll and another flank being attacked. -Forwarded Date: 16 Jan 1998 11:59:02 -0700 Received: (qmail 22083 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 1998 18:11:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 22043 invoked by uid 516); 16 Jan 1998 18:11:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 21984 invoked from network); 16 Jan 1998 18:10:59 -0000 Received: from mail12.digital.com (192.208.46.20) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 1998 18:10:59 -0000 Received: from us3rmc.cxo.dec.com (us3rmc.cxo.dec.com [16.63.0.134]) by mail12.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.5/1.0/WV) with SMTP id NAA05721 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 1998 13:04:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from peaks.enet by us3rmc.cxo.dec.com (5.65/rmc-17Jan97) id AA21024; Fri, 16 Jan 98 11:04:01 -0700 Message-Id: <9801161804.AA21024@us3rmc.cxo.dec.com> Received: from peaks.enet; by us3rmc.enet; Fri, 16 Jan 98 11:04:38 MST Cc: oakey@peaks.ENET.dec.com Apparently-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Posted to rkba-co by ----------------------- Another poll you might want to check out and vote on. Roger Oakey http://www.abcnews.com/sections/us/philaguns0114/index.html For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: [Fwd: Gran'pa Jack's "Common Sense"] -Forwarded Date: 16 Jan 1998 13:46:50 -0700 Received: (qmail 21566 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 1998 04:58:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 21554 invoked by uid 516); 16 Jan 1998 04:58:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 21522 invoked from network); 16 Jan 1998 04:58:23 -0000 Received: from mailserv.rockymtn.net (HELO mg3.rockymtn.net) (166.93.205.13) by majordomo.pobox.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 1998 04:58:23 -0000 Received: from rainbow.rmi.net (rainbow [166.93.8.14]) by mg3.rockymtn.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA14007; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:57:59 -0700 (MST) Received: from helmetfish (166-93-57-164.rmi.net [166.93.57.164]) by rainbow.rmi.net (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA03966; Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:57:56 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <34BEE85B.3987@rmi.net> Organization: Global Neighborhood Watch (http://www.rmi.net/~hlmtfish) X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Posted to rkba-co by "C. F. Inston" ----------------------- Chris W. Stark wrote: > > ****JPFO e-mail Alert!**** > > Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. > Aaron Zelman - Executive Director > 2874 So. Wentworth Ave. > Milwaukee, WI 53207 > Ph. (414) 769-0760 Fax (414) 483-8435 > http://www.JPFO.org > email: Against-Genocide@JPFO.org > > 01/14/98 > -------- > > Dear reader of Gran'pa Jack's "Common Sense": > > We're in a lot of trouble. > > Over the twenty-five years that I've been doing political cartooning > I've realized that something has gone terribly wrong with our country. > I've been around enough years to know that many basic things have > changed in the United States. Crime, immorality (at all levels), a > decline in the work ethic, racism, drugs, etc. We're unable to > defend our country, even our own borders...and worse yet, our homes > and families. > > But there is a major reason in my estimation why we have slipped so > badly. I didn't realize it until Aaron asked me to work on this book > about Gran'pa Jack and the Bill of Rights. > > I was surprised how little I really understood about that foundation > document of our freedoms. I was shocked when I realized how very > little most people knew about it. And, I was horrified when I > discovered that our government not only seemed not to understand > it, but appeared to actively ignore it. > > We have no freedoms without a strong Bill of Rights And those > freedoms trickle away when we fail to demand that our elected > officials live by those Rights. > > Fortunately, JPFO has been able to educate various state legislators > about an idea whose time has truly arrived - to designate December > 15 as "Bill of Rights Day''! (This is the date in 1791 the Bill of > Rights was ratified). A day when all Americans can celebrate and > reflect on the importance of the rock of our freedoms. A day that > can honored by all Americans, of all races and political persuasions. > A day that we commemorate the guarantee of freedom of speech, the > press, religion, etc. of all - right, left or center! > > We honor our forefathers by declaring: "All of the Bill of Rights for > All Citizens"! > > Already, legislators from a number of states are requesting more > information, so that they might introduce a bill in their governing > bodies. > > Please purchase and distribute the Gran'pa Jack "Common Sense" booklet > at once, so you can educate others about why we have a Bill of Rights > and how our freedoms are being destroyed! You can obtain it by going > to JPFO's web site at http://www.JPFO.org. Look under "Bill of Rights > Day". > > Who can be against honoring our nation's freedoms? What is their > agenda? > > Let me be the first to wish you a "Happy Bill of Rights day". > > Sincerely, > > Dick Hafer. > > ***************************************************************** > JPFO is urgently requesting its members to submit the editorial > below to newspaper editors all across the country: > ***************************************************************** > > SAMPLE LETTER TO THE EDITOR > > The United States of America might never have existed without one > thing: the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights limits the power of > the government and protects the rights of the people. It was so > important that several of the original 13 states would not ratify > the Constitution without it. > > Nearly everything that makes an American proud to be one comes from > the Bill of Rights. Freedoms to speak, print, read, assemble, pray, > petition the government, keep and bear arms. Protection from > unreasonable arrests and searches, excessive bail, double jeopardy, > coerced confessions, cruel and unusual punishment. Rights to due > process, jury trials, counsel, and to present defense witnesses. > These are the freedoms and rights that define America. > > Surprisingly, Americans do not celebrate the foundation of our > political freedom, the Bill of Rights -- but we should. After all, > the Bill of Rights is part of our Constitution, it is what our > military people pledge to serve and die for. It is uniquely American. > People on the political left, center, and right can all rally around > the Bill of Rights because it expresses our shared basic values. > > On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified and has > since protected American citizens for 206 years. We should celebrate > December 15 every year. By officially designating December 15 as > Bill of Rights Day, we would be reminding our fellow citizens and > younger generations of our heritage. Bill of Rights Day would > declare America's commitment to civil and human rights to the > world. The special day would annually remind politicians, bureaucrats, > prosecutors, and judges that their authority and power are limited > -- that the government serves us Americans, it does not rule us. > > December 15, Bill of Rights Day, reminds us of the liberty we have > and what it costs to keep it. By celebrating Bill of Rights Day > every year, perhaps we shall never forget. > > ***END OF SAMPLE LETTER TO THE EDITOR*** > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > JPFO would like to thank its membership for their loyal > support. For without our membership, alerts as this would > not be possible. Please consider joining JPFO today. > Membership information is available on our web site. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > ************************************************************** > Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership > Chris W. Stark - JPFO Director of Electronic Communications > 2874 So. Wentworth Ave. > Milwaukee, WI 53207 > Ph. (414) 769-0760 > Fax (414) 483-8435 > e-mail: Against-Genocide@JPFO.org > > Visit our Web Page at: http://www.JPFO.org > > "America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership." > ************************************************************** > TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to: > > subscribe@JPFO.org > > ...and in the body of the message, type the word "subscribe". > ************************************************************** -- Charles 'Chuck' Inston Copyrighted material contained within this document is used in compliance with the United States Code, Title 17, Section 107, "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching" For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Gunism = Racism? Date: 17 Jan 1998 22:03:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Not much has been said on this list about GOP State Chair Rob Bishop's equation of anti-gun laws to racial discrimination. I'm amazed that the RKBA community has been quite silent on this issue (or maybe I haven't heard their response in the media). David Kopel has a book out relating the racially-driven motives of early gun-control legislation. Better to just let Rob Bishop twist in the wind on this one, or will gun rights as a whole be harmed? Scooter! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: May We See Your Papers Please? 2/2 Date: 19 Jan 1998 08:01:00 -0700 I looked at her and asked if the searchers were aware that they had to punch that strip of bright orange paper after they searched my purse? "Yes, they know that," she replied. "Well then, I guess it is their responsibility to punch it and not mine to be sure they do, right?" She didn't really answer me but made it clear in motions that she was done with me and for me to proceed so she could help the next person. I proceeded to the metal detection area where a long line was waiting to be `detected.' I was not carrying anything other than my purse which had this BRIGHT orange flagging on it so that everyone would know I was some sort of criminal and not a compliant little sheep following the dictates of the NWO. I enjoy watching people so this gave me a lot of entertainment as I stood in line. When I reached the position of approximately 7th in line the man that I presume is an observer was saying something. I didn't realize right away that he was talking to me. When it dawned on me that he was directing his comments to me I asked him to please repeat what he said as I had not heard him. He smiled broadly and pointed at the BRIGHT orange flagging and asked me WHAT I had done to deserve that as they rarely ever see that on a passenger. Keep in mind this area was crowded and the voice level had to be raised in order to be heard. I made sure my purse became very visible and smiling, I told him (loudly) that I was guilty of NOT PRODUCING GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION as I thought I lived in AMERICA and didn't realize I was living in NAZI GERMANY!!! This definitely caught the attention of many and the observer smiled and said OK, he understood. By this time I was at the metal detector and placed my purse on the conveyor belt and walked thru to be ^Ñdetected.' A nice young black woman took my purse and asked me to please step to the side with her as they needed to physically search my purse. I said fine and followed her to a window sill. She explained she had to call for a supervisor. When the supervisor appeared the first person began to remove the items from my purse. I love these exercises. I have a well stocked purse, too. In fact, it was even more so than usual as I had my 8 oz bottle of Colloidal Silver in my purse so that it wouldn't spill in my suitcase. I am an E'Ola Distributor and I take the C.S. daily as a preventative anti-biotic (I am allergic to all but two prescription anti-biotics) so I had to have it with me. I had to explain what was in the bottle, which I did. I told both of them they were lucky I had not brought my little C.S. Maker (for making the C.S. myself) as it has three batteries and wires and silver probes. That would have made them all nervous and probably landed me in a cell somewhere. Both of them were very nice and polite through this process. After all items were removed and those that needed explanation were explained, the woman attempted to replace the items in my purse. After a while of watching the attempted repack I asked if there was any rule that prevented me from repacking it. She gratefully said no, so I did the chore. As I was repacking my purse the supervisor (he was of Asian decent) asked me WHY I went through all of this. I explained to him that I was born in America almost 58 years ago and I still believed in ALL the freedoms that Americans are supposed to have. Also, that I would continue to exercise my rights as I understand them until the day I die in spite of the Socialist restraints being imposed upon the people of this Country. This man looked me square in the eyes and told me "thank you" and to please continue doing it. He wished more people would stand against these things as I have chosen to do. I wish I would have had more time to find out where he came from and to hear his story but flight time was fast arriving so off I went to the boarding area. I made mental notes of the expressions on the faces of those that would see my BRIGHT orange flagging (reminded me of the YELLOW STAR during WWII) and wished I had time to explain to them the reason why I had it. Perhaps a few understood. I boarded the plane without further stops and arrived in Reno on time. An amazing event took place in spite of my not having produced GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION but only using a Costco Card to get on board--all of the passengers on that flight arrived SAFELY, can you believe it? No one was harmed by my lack of producing GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. - Monte -------------------------------------------------------------------- "Maybe freedom's just one of those things that you can't inherit." - Peter Bradford, in the film "Amerika" -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Observer http://www.proliberty.com/observer - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: May We See Your Papers Please? 1/2 Date: 19 Jan 1998 08:01:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- liberty-and-justice@pobox.com From Jackie Juntti's website - http://home.earthlink.net/~idzrus/index.html ------- Did you know you have to provide 'GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION' to travel? I took one of my very infrequent trips on an airplane last week. I had been forewarned by one of my daughters that I would HAVE to produce a Drivers License in order to get past the baggage check-in desk. Well, this just happens to be an extremely sensitive issue with me and I said, "NO WAY," I will get on that plane using my Costco card as it has my photo on it. I did call the airline and ask what the deal was on identification. I did this as the plane tickets were a gift from my brother and sister-in-law and I couldn't goof up their gift to me to prove a point. The person I spoke with on the phone was very polite in telling me that I would indeed need GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID to board the plane. I asked what is considered Government Issued ID? She explained that would be a state issued Drivers License, a state issued Identification Card, or a Passport. I asked what a person can do that has none of those items. She replied, then you must get one of them. I told her my flight was scheduled the next day so there was no time to get any of those items and just whom would I talk with to discover what other options would be available. Her response was to go talk with the airport security at the airport. I did not do that, choosing instead to take my chances of just going to the airport and seeing what would happen. I love real life adventures. Upon arriving at Sea-Tac I gave my daughter the usual hug and kiss and said "Bye, see you in a week" - or whatever. Grabbed my luggage and headed towards the baggage/ticket counter. When my turn came I placed my suitcase on the proper spot and handed the clerk my tickets. She looked at them and asked for ID. I opened my purse and my wallet and pulled out my Costco Card and handed it to her. Believe me, this was a Kodak Moment!!!! She recovered and then explained that I needed to produce GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. The ensuing discussion was long (took about 15 minutes to get past this point to the next step) and I will just summarize for this writing. Oh yes, there were many people standing around that heard all of this. We went back and forth over GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID and my comments about why did I need a drivers license, I wasn't driving the plane--that I thought I lived in America and we had freedom here and hadn't reached the point of having to PRODUCE OUR PAPERS. Next we discussed how someone who flies only every few years is to know of these socialist rules. The requirement of needing GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION is not printed on the tickets or the envelopes that contain the tickets. And, as I looked around where I stood (where they sell tickets) there was not any notice concerning that rule. She explained that I would have been advised at the time I purchased the tickets of the ID requirement. I told her I didn't purchase the tickets, they were a gift and had been mailed to me. "Well, it is FAA rules", she said. I asked for a copy of those rules so that I could see for myself if that was indeed true. She didn't have a copy and told me to contact FAA for one. I explained that it was odd that IF that is the rule then it should be readily available for the public to see. The conversation then went to how safe she feels knowing that everyone on the plane has GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION as it makes everyone SAFER and more SECURE. I remarked that false identification is not that hard to get and I didn't understand how the possession of possibly false GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION could make anyone feel safer. I certainly didn't feel any safer or more secure knowing that all passengers carried GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. We agreed that we seemed to have different views on what constitutes SAFETY and SECURITY. (I really wanted to explain how the FBI, BATF, CIA, had GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION and I wondered how SAFE & SECURE the Randy Weaver family and the Branch Davidians felt knowing that those firing on them had GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. I don't think she would have comprehended the relationship at all). I finally asked her point blank if the fact that I didn't produce any GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION was going to create denial of my boarding the plane. She was very exasperated at this point as I am sure they have not been taught how to deal with nice little old ladies that aren't nasty or threatening but just asking honest questions. She then reached down below her counter area and pulled out a very bright flourescent orange strip of card stock, approx 18 inches x 1.5 inches that she folded around my purse strap and stapled it. I was told NOT TO REMOVE it either. She then explained that I would HAVE to submit to a physical search of my purse upon passing thru the metal detection area. AND, be sure they punch this strip after you have been searched or YOU WILL NOT GET ON THAT PLANE!!! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Know Thy Enemy Date: 19 Jan 1998 08:01:00 -0700 Web sites to check out: http://www.assc.org/afc/afchome.html http://www.assc.org/index.html Vol.2 No. 2, Fall 1996 AFC Journal EDUCATING AMERICA ABOUT FIREARMS Know Thy Enemy by John Riggio If you want insight and an eye-opening, wake-up call of what the anti-gun crowd has in store for gun owners and the firearm industry, you should personally attend one of their conferences and witness firsthand their fervor and fanaticism and the propaganda they dish out. That's exactly what I got when I attended the Midwest Conference Against Handgun Violence in Chicago this summer organized by the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and sponsored by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, an arm of Sarah Brady's Handgun Control, Inc. From their names, they'd like you to believe they're concerned with handgun violence. But they're not so much concerned with the violence as just the handgun part. For a day and a half I sat biting my tongue as I heard some of the most incredible "disinformation" and distortion about guns and watched impressionable citizens worked into a mindless frenzy over firearms. Experts from various professions addressed topics ranging from fund raising and organizational development, to generating media publicity, building coalitions with like-minded groups (like anti-hunting and animal rights advocates), and how to "educate" voters on gun control issues. These people have created an industry of their own called "gun control" and they are "franchising" it across the country and expertly marketing it as "anti-violence." These people are serious, organized and well-funded. They see absolutely no use for firearms of any kind. They dismiss self-protection with a gun as a promotional gimmick of firearm companies and continually refer to that discredited study that claims a gun in the home is more dangerous to a homeowner than to a housebreaker. They see hunting as uncivilized and cruel. They view recreational and competition shooting as pastimes that foster violent, criminal behavior. They oppose firearm safety training because they believe it indoctrinates youth into the "culture of guns." They depict gun clubs and gun owner organizations as right-wing, lunatic-fringe groups on the brink of overthrowing the government. In their eyes, as a licensed gun dealer, I am a "merchant of death" and average gun owners are misguided members of an "unenlightened" class who must be protected from themselves. These people are serious and sincere in their beliefs that guns are the root of all evil. Above all else, they are intolerant. Intolerant of views that differ from their own. Intolerant of facts that challenge the validity of their own perceptions. They don't want to be confused with facts. They know what is right and what is right is that gun ownership is wrong. Seeing all of this firsthand left me with the clear impression that the anti-gunners have decided advantages over our side. One is the passion they bring to their cause. They are committed to their goals and the belief that they are on a mission to save not just one life, but the whole world. Another advantage they enjoy is the fact that their only focus, their primary business, is to rid the world of guns and they are united in that effort. For those of us in the industry, most of our time is spent trying to earn an honest day's wages. We're tired after a 12-hour shift or a 70-hour work week. There's not enough time left for the family or friends much less politics and proselytizing for converts to our side. And, the margin of profit I make in selling guns doesn't leave much for contributing to the organizations we need to counter groups like HCI, which receives huge grants from multi-national foundations and gets free work from Madison Avenue ad agencies and law firms. Still, I try my best, to support our cause, not just because my livelihood depends on it, but because I am a true believer in individual rights and individual responsibility. Nowhere are these concepts better illustrated than in the individual right to keep and bear arms, and in the holding of the individual criminal responsible when he or she abuses that right. Throughout the day at my gun shop, my staff and I work hard at selling guns. But we also work hard at selling the need for our customers to be safe, responsible, and politically active gun owners. That is a challenge all of us must take. We must do more as businessmen and women in this industry to fight against the likes of Sarah Brady and her growing gun control franchises. We've got to stop letting the few in this industry, like the American Shooting Sports Council, do 98% of our job. As an industry trade association, ASSC is doing great work. But they need help. They need the support of each of us in this industry. Besides joining the ASSC, one of the more critical things each of us can do, is to personally attend an anti-gun conference and see for yourself their plans and strategies and learn firsthand what they have in store for the future of the firearm industry and firearm ownership. === John Riggio is the owner of a successful gunshop and has been in the firearm business for 30 years and is a member of ASSC. ©1996, 1997, The American Firearms Council for information concerning this web site, contact George Miller Last modified: January 29, 1997 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Gunism = Racism? Date: 19 Jan 1998 10:57:44 -0700 SCOTT BERGESON wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 18:38:43 EST > From: JRLinSLC > To: lputah@qsicorp.com > > Not much has been said on this list about GOP State Chair Rob Bishop's > equation of anti-gun laws to racial discrimination. > > I'm amazed that the RKBA community has been quite silent on this issue > (or maybe I haven't heard their response in the media). > > David Kopel has a book out relating the racially-driven motives of early > gun-control legislation. > > Better to just let Rob Bishop twist in the wind on this one, or will gun > rights as a whole be harmed? > > Scooter! > > - I know the day after the Trib's editorial saying that Bishop was a lunatic for the wingnut suggestion that gun bans are prejudicial, there was a response on the editor's fax machine. I don't expect to see it published, especially after the letter from the reverend that they published yesterday. Guess it's time we all learned... civil rights only pertain to skin color. prejudice only pertains to race. I know that every time I spoke with the Chrony last fall I brought up the Tennessee gun control laws and Jim Crow. The oh-so concerned reporters don't want to hear it. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Know Thy Enemy -Forwarded Date: 19 Jan 1998 13:13:43 -0700 Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0xuJC0-0004hM-00; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 08:32:52 -0700 Received: from mail.xmission.com [198.60.22.22] by lists.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0xuJBx-0004gh-00; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 08:32:49 -0700 Received: from xmission.xmission.com [198.60.22.2] (admn) by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0xuJBw-0002Hi-00; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 08:32:49 -0700 Received: (from admn@localhost) by xmission.xmission.com (8.8.7/8.7.5) id IAA13667 for utah-firearms@xmission.com; Mon, 19 Jan 1998 08:32:45 -0700 (MST) X-Authentication-Warning: xmission.xmission.com: admn set sender to utahnet!scott.bergeson using -f Message-ID: <8E7A1E1.01F5007960.uuout@ucs.org> Organization: Utah Computer Society Salt Lake City, Ut, USA 801-281-8770 X-Mailreader: PCBoard Version 15.22 X-Mailer: PCBoard/UUOUT Version 1.20 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com Web sites to check out: http://www.assc.org/afc/afchome.html http://www.assc.org/index.html Vol.2 No. 2, Fall 1996 AFC Journal EDUCATING AMERICA ABOUT FIREARMS Know Thy Enemy by John Riggio If you want insight and an eye-opening, wake-up call of what the anti-gun crowd has in store for gun owners and the firearm industry, you should personally attend one of their conferences and witness firsthand their fervor and fanaticism and the propaganda they dish out. That's exactly what I got when I attended the Midwest Conference Against Handgun Violence in Chicago this summer organized by the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and sponsored by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, an arm of Sarah Brady's Handgun Control, Inc. From their names, they'd like you to believe they're concerned with handgun violence. But they're not so much concerned with the violence as just the handgun part. For a day and a half I sat biting my tongue as I heard some of the most incredible "disinformation" and distortion about guns and watched impressionable citizens worked into a mindless frenzy over firearms. Experts from various professions addressed topics ranging from fund raising and organizational development, to generating media publicity, building coalitions with like-minded groups (like anti-hunting and animal rights advocates), and how to "educate" voters on gun control issues. These people have created an industry of their own called "gun control" and they are "franchising" it across the country and expertly marketing it as "anti-violence." These people are serious, organized and well-funded. They see absolutely no use for firearms of any kind. They dismiss self-protection with a gun as a promotional gimmick of firearm companies and continually refer to that discredited study that claims a gun in the home is more dangerous to a homeowner than to a housebreaker. They see hunting as uncivilized and cruel. They view recreational and competition shooting as pastimes that foster violent, criminal behavior. They oppose firearm safety training because they believe it indoctrinates youth into the "culture of guns." They depict gun clubs and gun owner organizations as right-wing, lunatic-fringe groups on the brink of overthrowing the government. In their eyes, as a licensed gun dealer, I am a "merchant of death" and average gun owners are misguided members of an "unenlightened" class who must be protected from themselves. These people are serious and sincere in their beliefs that guns are the root of all evil. Above all else, they are intolerant. Intolerant of views that differ from their own. Intolerant of facts that challenge the validity of their own perceptions. They don't want to be confused with facts. They know what is right and what is right is that gun ownership is wrong. Seeing all of this firsthand left me with the clear impression that the anti-gunners have decided advantages over our side. One is the passion they bring to their cause. They are committed to their goals and the belief that they are on a mission to save not just one life, but the whole world. Another advantage they enjoy is the fact that their only focus, their primary business, is to rid the world of guns and they are united in that effort. For those of us in the industry, most of our time is spent trying to earn an honest day's wages. We're tired after a 12-hour shift or a 70-hour work week. There's not enough time left for the family or friends much less politics and proselytizing for converts to our side. And, the margin of profit I make in selling guns doesn't leave much for contributing to the organizations we need to counter groups like HCI, which receives huge grants from multi-national foundations and gets free work from Madison Avenue ad agencies and law firms. Still, I try my best, to support our cause, not just because my livelihood depends on it, but because I am a true believer in individual rights and individual responsibility. Nowhere are these concepts better illustrated than in the individual right to keep and bear arms, and in the holding of the individual criminal responsible when he or she abuses that right. Throughout the day at my gun shop, my staff and I work hard at selling guns. But we also work hard at selling the need for our customers to be safe, responsible, and politically active gun owners. That is a challenge all of us must take. We must do more as businessmen and women in this industry to fight against the likes of Sarah Brady and her growing gun control franchises. We've got to stop letting the few in this industry, like the American Shooting Sports Council, do 98% of our job. As an industry trade association, ASSC is doing great work. But they need help. They need the support of each of us in this industry. Besides joining the ASSC, one of the more critical things each of us can do, is to personally attend an anti-gun conference and see for yourself their plans and strategies and learn firsthand what they have in store for the future of the firearm industry and firearm ownership. === John Riggio is the owner of a successful gunshop and has been in the firearm business for 30 years and is a member of ASSC. #1996, 1997, The American Firearms Council for information concerning this web site, contact George Miller Last modified: January 29, 1997 - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Nothing to do with firearms, but what the hey... Date: 19 Jan 1998 16:21:37 -0700 > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >Date: Sat, 17 Jan 98 23:40:25 EST > >From:drudge@drudgereport.com > >To: DRUDGE@drudgereport.com > >Subject: DRUDGE-REPORT-EXCLUSIVE 1/18/98 > > > >XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX 06:11 UTC SUN JAN 18 1998 XXXXX > > > >NEWSWEEK KILLS STORY ON WHITE HOUSE INTERN > > > >BLOCKBUSTER REPORT: 23-YEAR OLD, FORMER WHITE HOUSE INTERN, SEX > >RELATIONSHIP WITH PRESIDENT > > > >**World Exclusive** > >**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT** > > > >At the last minute, at 6 p.m. on Saturday evening, NEWSWEEK magazine killed > >a story that was destined to shake official Washington to its foundation: A > >White House intern carried on a sexual affair with the President of the > >United States! > > > >The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that reporter Michael Isikoff developed the > >story of his career, only to have it spiked by top NEWSWEEK suits hours > >before publication. A young woman, 23, sexually involved with the love of > >her life, the President of the United States, since she was a 21-year-old > >intern at the White House. She was a frequent visitor to a small study just > >off the Oval Office where she claims to have indulged the president's sexual > >preference. Reports of the relationship spread in White House quarters and > >she was moved to a job at the Pentagon, where she worked until last week. > > > >The young intern wrote long love letters to President Clinton, which she > >delivered through a delivery service. She was a frequent visitor at the > >White House after midnight, where she checked in the WAVE logs as visiting a > >secretary named Betty Curry, 57. > > > >The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that tapes of intimate phone conversations > >exist. > > > >The relationship between the president and the young woman become strained > >when the president believed that the young woman was bragging to others > >about the affair. > > > >NEWSWEEK and Isikoff were planning to name the woman. Word of the story's > >impeding release caused blind chaos in media circles; TIME magazine spent > >Saturday scrambling for its own version of the story, the DRUDGE REPORT has > >learned. The NEW YORK POST on Sunday was set to front the young intern's > >affair, but was forced to fall back on the dated ABC NEWS Kathleen Willey > >break. > > > >The story was set to break just hours after President Clinton testified in > >the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. > > > >Ironically, several years ago, it was Isikoff that found himself in a > >shouting match with editors who were refusing to publish even a portion of > >his meticulously researched investigative report that was to break Paula > >Jones. Isikoff worked for the WASHINGTON POST at the time, and left shortly > >after the incident to build them for the paper's sister magazine, NEWSWEEK. > > > >Michael Isikoff was not available for comment late Saturday. NEWSWEEK was > >on voice mail. > > > >The White House was busy checking the DRUDGE REPORT for details. > > > >Developing... > > > >____________________________________________________ > >Filed by Matt Drudge > >The REPORT is moved when circumstances warrant > >http://www.drudgereport.com for breaks > >(c)DRUDGE REPORT 1998 > >Not for reproduction without permission of the author - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Know Thy Enemy Date: 19 Jan 1998 17:25:29 -0700 Give it a BREAK!! HCI is a MUCH better friend than the ASSC - I'll take a known enemy over one who pretends to be my "friend" any day. The ASSC was at the forefront of the mandatory trigger lock agreement. Worse, they support truly repressive national firearms laws. Check out the following, and then check out their website _carefully_. BOSTON, Jan. 14 (UPI) _ Firearms manufacturers have filed suit to block first-in-the-nation gun control regulations in Massachusetts just one day before the new rules are set to take effect.=20 The regulations, the first to be issued under a state's consumer protection laws, effectively ban the sale of so-called ``Saturday Night Specials'' and require all handguns sold in Massachusetts to include child-proofing features, tamper-proof serial numbers and consumer safety warnings.=20 The suit, filed in Superior Court in Boston, accuses state Attorney General Scott Harshbarger of exceeding his authority in drawing up the rules. It contends the regulations violate the companies' constitutional right to due process and place an ``undue burden'' on interstate commerce.=20 At a hastily called news conference, Harshbarger accused the gun lobby of ``putting the lives of our children at serious risk.'' He said the move shows ``how out of touch the (industry) is with the vast majority of people in Massachusetts.''=20 ffff,0000,0000A spokesman for the American Sports Shooting Council, one of the plaintiffs, said the gunmakers are not necessarily opposed to the rules but contend they should be imposed nationwide, not on a state-by-state basis.=20 Richard Feldman said, ``We can't manufacture products in 50 different flavors.'' He added, ``If it's a good idea, we're happy to do it, but let's do it nationally.''=20 Also joining the suit were the Massachusetts-based Smith & Wesson Corp., Glock Inc. and Taurus Firearms International Co.=20 Sun Tzu's Newswire Index at URL: -- http://www.ccnet.com/~suntzu75/pirn.htm At 08:01 AM 1/19/98 -0700, you wrote: > >Web sites to check out: >http://www.assc.org/afc/afchome.html >http://www.assc.org/index.html > >Vol.2 No. 2, Fall 1996 >AFC Journal > >EDUCATING AMERICA ABOUT FIREARMS > >Know Thy Enemy > >by John Riggio > >If you want insight and an eye-opening, wake-up call of what the anti-gun >crowd has in store for gun owners and the firearm industry, you should >personally attend one of their conferences and witness firsthand their >fervor and fanaticism and the propaganda they dish out. > >That's exactly what I got when I attended the Midwest Conference Against >Handgun Violence in Chicago this summer organized by the Illinois Council >Against Handgun Violence and sponsored by the Center to Prevent=20 Handgun >Violence, an arm of Sarah Brady's Handgun Control, Inc. > >>From their names, they'd like you to believe they're concerned with handgun >violence. But they're not so much concerned with the violence as just the >handgun part. > >For a day and a half I sat biting my tongue as I heard some of the=20 most >incredible "disinformation" and distortion about guns and watched >impressionable citizens worked into a mindless frenzy over firearms. > >Experts from various professions addressed topics ranging from fund raising >and organizational development, to generating media publicity,=20 building >coalitions with like-minded groups (like anti-hunting and animal=20 rights >advocates), and how to "educate" voters on gun control issues. > >These people have created an industry of their own called "gun control" and >they are "franchising" it across the country and expertly marketing it as >"anti-violence." > >These people are serious, organized and well-funded. They see absolutely no >use for firearms of any kind. They dismiss self-protection with a gun as a >promotional gimmick of firearm companies and continually refer to that >discredited study that claims a gun in the home is more dangerous to a >homeowner than to a housebreaker. > >They see hunting as uncivilized and cruel. They view recreational and >competition shooting as pastimes that foster violent, criminal behavior. > >They oppose firearm safety training because they believe it indoctrinates >youth into the "culture of guns." > >They depict gun clubs and gun owner organizations as right-wing, >lunatic-fringe groups on the brink of overthrowing the government. > >In their eyes, as a licensed gun dealer, I am a "merchant of death"=20 and >average gun owners are misguided members of an "unenlightened" class who >must be protected from themselves. > >These people are serious and sincere in their beliefs that guns are=20 the >root of all evil. Above all else, they are intolerant. Intolerant of views >that differ from their own. Intolerant of facts that challenge the validity >of their own perceptions. They don't want to be confused with facts. They >know what is right and what is right is that gun ownership is wrong. > >Seeing all of this firsthand left me with the clear impression that=20 the >anti-gunners have decided advantages over our side. One is the passion they >bring to their cause. They are committed to their goals and the belief that >they are on a mission to save not just one life, but the whole world. > >Another advantage they enjoy is the fact that their only focus, their primary >business, is to rid the world of guns and they are united in that effort. > >For those of us in the industry, most of our time is spent trying to earn >an honest day's wages. We're tired after a 12-hour shift or a 70-hour work >week. There's not enough time left for the family or friends much less >politics and proselytizing for converts to our side. And, the margin=20 of >profit I make in selling guns doesn't leave much for contributing to the >organizations we need to counter groups like HCI, which receives huge >grants from multi-national foundations and gets free work from Madison >Avenue ad agencies and law firms. > >Still, I try my best, to support our cause, not just because my livelihood >depends on it, but because I am a true believer in individual rights and >individual responsibility. Nowhere are these concepts better illustrated >than in the individual right to keep and bear arms, and in the holding of >the individual criminal responsible when he or she abuses that right. > >Throughout the day at my gun shop, my staff and I work hard at selling >guns. But we also work hard at selling the need for our customers to=20 be >safe, responsible, and politically active gun owners. > >That is a challenge all of us must take. We must do more as businessmen and >women in this industry to fight against the likes of Sarah Brady and her >growing gun control franchises. > >We've got to stop letting the few in this industry, like the American >Shooting Sports Council, do 98% of our job. As an industry trade >association, ASSC is doing great work. But they need help. They need the >support of each of us in this industry. > >Besides joining the ASSC, one of the more critical things each of us can >do, is to personally attend an anti-gun conference and see for=20 yourself >their plans and strategies and learn firsthand what they have in store for >the future of the firearm industry and firearm ownership. >=3D=3D=3D > >John Riggio is the owner of a successful gunshop and has been in the >firearm business for 30 years and is a member of ASSC. > >=A91996, 1997, The American Firearms Council >for information concerning this web site, contact George Miller >Last modified: January 29, 1997 Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air. Margaret Thatcher (b. 1925) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Guns and Bigots Date: 19 Jan 1998 18:09:06 -0700 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Wednesday, Jan. 14, the Salt Lake Tribune ran the following "idiotorial": http://www.sltrib.com/98/jan/011498/opinion/opinion.asp > Wednesday, January 14, 1998 > Silly Comparison > Rob Bishop would be a more effective advocate for > the gun lobby if he would stop shooting off > ill-considered criticisms of school and workplace > firearm restrictions. > The average person is sympathetic to and might even > support the right to own and bear arms. Up to the point, > however, where that right conflicts with the right to > work, learn and live in reasonably safe surroundings. > Bishop, who wears a curious collection of hats that > includes chairman of the state Republican Party and > lobbyist for the Utah Shooting Sports Council (USSC), > said last week he considers university officials > preventing licensed guns from being carried on campus > similar to public officials disobeying laws on enrolling > minorities at state colleges and universities. The > comparison is just plain silly. > It's like saying drunken drivers are discriminated > against because drinking alcohol is legal. Even if > driving while intoxicated doesn't always lead to a > serious accident, drinking and driving imposes an > unacceptable risk on the general public. > The presence of guns in inappropriate public places > can reduce safety of the surroundings. A home in which > firearms are present is more subject to accidental > injury or death from those weapons than a home that > contains no guns. Clearly, that's also true for a public > classroom, an office or a factory floor. > Bishop and his gun-rights employers are not > contending with prejudice, they are battling statistics. > > The irony in Bishop's comments is the impression > that the gun lobby is, indeed, unreasonable. If Bishop > and his colleagues do not comprehend the difference > between discrimination against a human being and > attempts to prevent avoidable risks to the public, they > can hardly be relied on for an understanding as to where > a gun owner's rights begin and end. > And that is largely what the gun-toting issue will > be about during this year's Utah legislative session. > When the Legislature two years ago said > concealed-weapons permits are valid without restriction, > it provoked a debate over whether ``without > restriction'' guaranteed a gun owner's right to carry > firearms into a school, a church or the workplace. It is > unlikely the public -- other than gun lovers -- would > condone a definition of ``without restriction'' that > prevents schools, churches or places of employment > posting ``no guns allowed'' notices. > Such prohibition is a far cry from defying > anti-discrimination laws by barring school houses > against minority students. Surely Utah legislators can > make the distinction even if former legislator, chief > Utah gun law lobbyist and State Republican Party > Chairman Rob Bishop can't. > > ) Copyright 1998, The Salt Lake Tribune My response (which was submitted by fax) is below. I doubt it will ever see print, but who cares? We netizens have our OWN free press. Public Forum The Salt Lake Tribune Fax: 801-237-2316 Rob Bishop is exactly on target when he states that gun owners are contending with prejudice and bigotry. Such prejudice is always accompanied by ignorance. The Tribune shows its ignorance by claiming that Bishop is battling statistics when those statistics actually support his position. Every legitimate study shows that allowing concealed carry decreases violent crime, and the presence of guns increases the safety of the surroundings. The Tribune further demonstrates its ignorance by failing to acknowledge that the first gun control laws were passed to "control" former slaves and that gun control has preceded every genocide this century. Are not racism and genocide the results of prejudice? Claims that gunowners threaten the safety of society are identical to Hitler's claims that Jews carried diseases and threatened the public health. Gun control equals racism equals genocide. The real issue, however, is trust. If the editors of the Tribune do not trust their readers with firearms, why should we trust you to provide accurate and unbiased news? If Gov. Leavitt does not trust his constituents with firearms, why should we trust him to spend our money, uphold the Constitution, or direct the national guard? If the officials at the University of Utah do not trust their own students and faculty with firearms, why should we trust them to educate our children? If my clergyman cannot trust me with a mere pistol, why should I entrust him with my soul? Your ministry of propaganda makes it clear that you are accomplices to those in power who know they must disarm, disempower and disinform the public to retain their power. Your tyranny shall not endure. Until every man, woman and responsible child has the absolute right to buy and carry any firearm, anytime, in any public place, you do not deserve, nor will you have, the trust or support of free citizens. You who have forgotten Lexington and Concord are doomed to the fate of all of humanity's oppressors. Sarah Thompson, M.D. Sandy, UT PS: Mr. Bishop's own comments (or at least the Trib's distortion of them) can be found at http://www.sltrib.com/98/jan/011198/utah/16947.asp -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5 iQEVAwUBNMP5MdfaQ3zqMQjXAQE6pAf+PGyW4MLMDsZYoK7raCKLs6ZFAKx1aOou ip9O8K7ljkiiN/X3G5HcLDiyAjSTInCd3L/rQDk4VrwWtGgNGBtWx3Btpl+1ZzKh qQwgDrTAKdlKhdmWkAMo1/MiJ24NpYFbyaFvIAeo8lYdh4baRCpSTq4Gr3rV4S7h vTtRqTCNCgzfW6Tb3uuz6Ske9WCL2jYCJm6f5QjsZXs1O0hu1hlBVD65qWERoZMB BpDKQJ203A9Kr5js0HNhcEW111rTmwHzZMsWTgvwDsWPqB0r5IWq9s6WpLhJQfve aTLI7DTIrccbN2tHQ8efu4DmXbv09Pd0D63sedVHurLFaM2oCYgtqw== =ttRq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com (under construction!) New! The Righter's weekly column with supplemental mail list. To subscribe send a message to: majordomo@aros.net with the message subscribe righter-list in the BODY of the message. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Trigger Lock Ordinance - Thank You Date: 19 Jan 1998 22:31:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Mayor Albano has been deluged with messages telling him how he needs to reread the Constitution and understand what it means. So far it looks like he has received thousands. Everyone has stated their points and has not gotten belligerent and thankfully have not been threatening. According to some reliable sources within the city government, the chief of police was called in to check the messages over for threats because the Mayor would like nothing better than to make us look like a bunch of terrorists that want their firearms. Thank you again for all your help and keep those messages coming and please make sure there are no threats. They are making a difference. Bob & Karen Powell Leroy & Bessie Crenshaw - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: WSJ Article on Robbery/Shooting Date: 20 Jan 1998 13:09:56 -0700 For any who might be interested, there is a lengthy and very human article starting on the front page of today's Wall Street Journal about a neighborhood pharmacist in a Detroit suburb who, after an armed robbery started carrying a gun at work and subsequently ended up killing another armed robber. Right hand column, entitle, "Crime Scene: Beyond the Statistics, A Druggist Confronts the Reality of Robbery." -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny in government. -- Thomas Jefferson, June 1776 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: History lesson -Forwarded Date: 20 Jan 1998 18:02:24 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA09679; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:46:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma009624; Tue Jan 20 18:45:01 1998 Message-Id: Errors-To: listproc@fs1.mainstream.com Reply-To: dugga@pacifier.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Purloined from another list... Letter to the Editor 6/7/95 - Arlington, Washington Times (Dear Hillary) During the past several months in the American press, the Democrats have frequently denounced the Republicans as Nazis due to their attempts to control runaway federal spending. How very ironic. I remember the Nazis. Let me share a little about them and recall some of their exploits. First of all, "Nazi" was gutter slang for the verb "to nationalize". The Bider-Mienhoff gang gave themselves this moniker during their early struggles. The official title of the Nazi Party was "The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany". Hitler and the Brownshirts advocated the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, national resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement. Hitler came to power by turning the working class, unemployed, and academic elite against the conservative republic. After der fuhrer's election ceased being a political conspiracy and was transformed into a fashionable social phenomenon, pary membership was especially popular with educators, bureaucrats, and the press. Being a Nazi was politically correct. They called themselves "The Children of the New Age of World Order" and looked down their noses at everyone else. As Hitler accrued more power, he referred to his critics as "The Dark Forces of Anarchy and Hatred". Anyone who questioned Nazi high-handedness in the German press was branded a "Conservative Reactionary". Joseph Goebbels, minister of communications, proclaimed a "New World Order". The Nazi reign of terror began with false news reports on the Jews, Bohemians and Gypses who were said to be arming themselves to overthrow the "New World Order" and Hitler demanded that all good people register their guns so that they wouldn't fall into the hands of "terrorists and madmen". Right wing fanatics of the "Old Order" who protested firearms registration were arrested by the S.S. and put in jail for "fomenting hatred against the Government of the German people". Then the Reichstag (government building) was blown up and Hitler ram-rodded an "Emergency Anti-Terrorist Act" through Parliament that gave the Gestapo extraordinary powers. The leader then declared that for the well-being of the German people, all private firearms were to be confiscated by the Gestapo and the Wermotten (federal law enforcement and military). German citizens who refused to surrender their guns when the "jack-boots" (Gestapo) came calling, were murdered in their homes. By the way, the Gestapo were the federal marshals' service of the Third Reich. The S.W.A.T. team was invented and perfected by the Gestapo to break into the homes of the enemies of the German people. When the Policia Bewakken, or local police, refused to take away guns from townsfolk, they themselves were disarmed and dragged out into the street and shot to death by the S.A. and the S.S. Those were Nazi versions of the B.A.T.F. and the F.B.I. When several local ministers spoke out against these atrocities, they were imprisoned and never seen again. The Gestapo began to confiscate and seize the homes, businesses, bank accounts, and personal belongings of wealthy conservative citizes who had prospered in the old Republic. Pamphleteers who urged revolt against the Nazis were shot on site by national law enforcement and the military. Gypsies and Jews were detained and sent to labor camps. Mountain roads throughout central Europe were closed to prevent the escape of fugitives into the wilderness, and to prevent the movement and concealment of partisan resistance fighters. Public schools rewrote history and Hitler youth groups taught the children to report their parents to their teachers for anti-Nazi remarks. Such parents disappeared. Pagan animism became the state religion of the Third Reich and Christians were widely condemned as "right wing fanatics". Millions of books were burned first and then people. Millions of them burned in huge ovens after they were first gassed to death. Unmarried women were paid large sums of money to have babies out of wedlock and then given medals for it. Evil was declared as being good, and good was condemned as being evil. World Order was coming and the German people were going to be the "peacekeepers". Yes, indeed(Hillary), I remember the Nazis and they weren't Republicans, or "right wing", or "patriots" or "militias". They were Socialist monsters. Thomas Colton Ruthford ============================================= ************************************************** * If you think you have the answer, you probably * * didn't understand the question! * ************************************************** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: NRA Subverted -Forwarded Date: 20 Jan 1998 19:03:02 -0700 Received: (qmail 30941 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 1998 00:34:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 30919 invoked by uid 516); 17 Jan 1998 00:33:59 -0000 Message-ID: <19980117003359.30918.qmail@listbox.com> Sender: owner-rkba-co.new@majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rkba-co@majordomo.pobox.com Posted to rkba-co by Chris BeHanna ----------------------- PLEASE READ, FORWARD, CROSS-POST, PRINT OUT, AND SHOW TO YOUR FRIENDS! POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES! PLACE IN YOUR MAILINGS. SPREAD THE WORD! ----- Begin Forwarded Message NEAL KNOX REPORT BATF View of NRA By NEAL KNOX WASHINGTON, D.C. (Jan. 10) -- It's fascinating to read the BATF's perception of their long-running battles with NRA. We're given a revealing look in William J. Vizzard's new book, "In The Cross Fire: A Political History of BATF" (Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1800 30th St., Ste. 314, Boulder, CO, 228 pp., 9.95). Vizzard served BATF for 27 years, starting in 1967 and including a stint on its headquarters staff. Now a professor of government at the University of California, Sacramento, Dr. Vizzard maintains a fairly objective view of the "gun control" issue, the NRA, and his old agency, except for his coverage of the Waco fiasco, when he becomes a BATF apologist. What makes the book particularly valuable to those of us still in the fight is his -- and the BATF hierarchy's perception -- of the policy effects of NRA's internal wars. Vizzard correctly states that the old, pre-1968 Gun Control Act BATF (at the time, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Unit of the IRS) was usually liberal in its enforcement of the Federal gun laws, particularly if the offense were mere possession of an illegal war souvenir by an honest citizen. But in the mid-1960's, Connecticut Sen. Tom Dodd (Sen. Chris' father) was outraged to learn that ATTU enforcement people were spending almost all their time on moonshiners, and only the equivalent of two man-years in gun law enforcement. In 1964, agents "raided" a Shreveport gun show, demanding that table operators present their licenses -- which then weren't required except to mail handguns. That was my first national gun politics story; in Guns Magazine. In 1966, an ATTU agent told gun sellers at a "Trade Day" in Chesney, S.C., (and me, the Gun Week editor) that they had to have a license to sell any gun, even to a dealer. ATTU agents remained confused about gun laws for several years. But the brass, eager to make the agency grow, recognized that moonshining was declining, and enthusiastically began pushing for broader gun laws to enforce -- which was about when Vizzard came into the agency. Vizzard says NRA had maintained close ties with law enforcement until 1977 when (at the Cincinnati annual meeting) control of NRA "was seized in a well-planned coup led by its militant, libertarian faction, led by Neal Knox and Harlan (sic) Carter." He describes Harlon as a "retired border patrol manager." In fact, he was a lifetime law enforcement officer, serving in every rank of the U.S. Border Patrol until he became the head at the age of 36, an incredible record. Neither of us were anti-law enforcement, except when law enforcement was trampling on Constitutional rights. When I became NRA-ILA Director in 1978, I hammered BATF's abuses under GCA '68, then rolled out the McClure-Volkmer bill, which as Vizzard says, would have gutted the Gun Control Act. After BATF became part of the Reagan Administration, "Neal Knox was forced out as (ILA Director) for opposing" efforts to weaken the bill. "Two years later Knox lost his seat on the NRA Board when he testified against an NRA-backed version of the bill.... An unfailingly polite and gentlemanly individual, Knox represents the extreme libertarian position on firearms," Vizzard wrote. "Inflexible resistance to compromise had temporarily cost Knox and his extremist supporters key positions of influence in the NRA and shifted the organization toward a more moderate position." If BATF considered me an extremist, I was doing my job. "Knox was replaced by Warren Cassidy.... ATF found that some accommodation could be reached with the NRA leadership after the Knox faction lost power." Vizzard notes that former BATF Director "Steve Higgins perceives ATF's ability to function in the political environment as tied directly to the nature of NRA leadership." Higgins is exactly right, which is why the upcoming NRA elections are so important to every defender of the Second Amendment. The Nominating Committee, elected by the tiny majority which unseated Albert Ross and me as NRA vice presidents, declined to nominate 14 incumbent Directors. The "offenses" of the targeted 14 are that they (1) usually agree with Knox, (2) advocate fuller disclosure of financial dealings between Officers, Directors and NRA (a member-petitioned Bylaw proposal on the March election ballot), (3) advocate more truthful and realistic NRA grades for squishy politicians and (4) advocate more aggressive challenges to BATF, Justice Department and the Washington, D.C. political establishment. NRA is again at a crossroads. How accommodating NRA is to BATF and the Clinton Administration will depend on who you and your fellow voting members choose as NRA Directors -- just as former BATF Director Higgins told Vizzard. --- (Retain Neal Knox as your personal lobbyist on Capitol Hill and begin receiving the bi-monthly "Hard Corps Report" by any contribution to the Firearms Coalition, Box 6537, Silver Spring, MD 20906. For legislative updates call 1-900-225-3006; the cost is 89 cents per minute, with no long distance charge.) Neal Knox wrote everything above this line, but nothing below it. 1. Please VOTE FOR THE FAITHFUL Second Amendment Action candidates: Jerry L. Allen Michael J. Beko* James A. Church William Dominguez Howard J. Fezell* Daniel B. Fiora Arnold J. Gaunt Fred Griisser Wesley H. Grogan Jr.* David M. Gross* John Guest Fred Gustafson Don L. Henry* William B. Hunt Phillip B. Journey* Michael S. Kindberg* Jeff Knox John C. Krull Robley T. Moore Larry R. Rankin Albert C. Ross* Frank H. Sawberger Thomas L. Seefeldt Kim Stolfer John H. Trentes Glen I. Voorhees Jr.* Those with an asterisk have been deliberately targeted to be PURGED as "extremists." What's "extreme" about demanding your rights? Help NRA help you and support these candidates! 2. Copy and circulate this letter: a) to NRA members on the internet, b) to your gun clubs and NRA member friends, c) distribute this letter and list at gun shows, gun stores, and shooting ranges. Ask all NRA members you know to VOTE FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT ACTION CANDIDATES. 3. A few dollars for advertising go a long way when they tell the truth. Please send your donation to: Second Amendment Action 100 Heathwood Drive Liberty, SC 29657. 4. Visit their web sites for further information: http://www.2ndamendment.net http://www.mcs.net/~lpyleprn/home.html http://www.nealknox.com/ (contains Heston interviews) ----- End Forwarded Message PLEASE READ, FOWARD, CROSS-POST, PRINT OUT, AND SHOW TO YOUR FRIENDS! POST AT GUN STORES, CLUBS AND RANGES! PLACE IN YOUR MAILINGS. SPREAD THE WORD! Chris BeHanna PGP 2.6.1 public key available NJ-RKBA List Maintainer behanna@fast.net http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna GUNS SAVE LIVES. For Help with Majordomo Commands, please send a message to: Majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com with the word Help in the body of the message - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: FWD: Gun Confiscation in CA -Forwarded Date: 20 Jan 1998 19:08:04 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA07600; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:01:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma007564; Tue Jan 20 18:00:15 1998 Message-Id: <2c14d524.34c50dee@aol.com> Errors-To: listproc@fs1.mainstream.com Reply-To: EdgarSuter@aol.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Confiscation Comes to California Lungren fulfills Feinstein's fantasy By Daryl N. Davis They said it would never happen. Any suggestion that it would was derided as "NRA paranoia." They told us they only wanted "reasonable controls." Well, it has happened. Gun confiscation is now the law in California. Thank you, Dan Lungren! In a letter dated November 24, 1997, The Man Who Would Be Governor declared that SKS rifles with detachable magazines, unless the owners can prove they acquired the rifles prior to June 1, 1989, are illegal "and must be relinquished to a local police or sheriff's department." This is a reversal of the opinion held by Mr. Lungren from the time he took office in January 1991, and which has been conveyed in numerous training sessions for peace officers, criminalists and prosecutors during the past four years. When the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) became law in January 1989, it included "SKS with detachable magazine." At that time, there were two distinct models-one with a fixed magazine (Type 56) and one with a detachable, AK-47 magazine (Type 84). President Bush banned importation of the Type 84 in 1990. Later that year, aftermarket detachable magazines (which are not interchangeable with the AK-47 magazine) became available for SKS rifles originally designed to use only a fixed magazine. Until September 1997, Mr. Lungren's position had been that only the Type 84 was an "assault weapon." He allowed the sale of the aftermarket detachable magazines and of SKS rifles equipped with them. He also allowed the sale of the SKS Sporter, basically a Type 84 that, in compliance with the import restrictions imposed by President Bush, had its bayonet lug ground off and was fitted to a sporting stock rather than a military stock. In September 1996, the Attorney General's office asked the state Supreme Court to "on its own motion order review of the Court of Appeals decision..." in the Dingman case. James Dingman had been convicted of possession of an unregistered assault weapon (Type 56 with detachable magazine) and his conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth District. Chief Deputy Attorney General (now candidate for Attorney General) David Stirling wrote: "The impact of the court's opinion cannot be over stated because of the millions of SKS rifles and after-market magazines currently in circulation. Tens of thousands of California citizens may become criminals simply by using a perfectly lawful rifle with a lawfully purchased magazine without adequate notice that such activity brings them within the proscriptions of the AWCA." In October 1996, in response to the "unprecedented" request by the Attorney General, the Supreme Court granted review of the Dingman case. In February 1997, the Attorney General's office filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of Dingman; they asked that the opinion of the Court of Appeals be "reversed." In September 1997, in response to a series of blatantly biased and aggressively uninformed hit pieces in the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Lungren reversed himself. He withdrew his amicus brief in the Dingman case, stating that it "inaccurately reflects the view of the Attorney General." Deputy Attorney General Paul Bishop, who had worked on the AWCA project since 1989, was transferred. Thanks to Mr. Lungren, "tens of thousands of California citizens" must either surrender their lawfully acquired property without compensation or become felons. Gun dealers throughout the state face felony prosecution, on individual counts, for each detachable magazine SKS they sold during the six years Mr. Lungren assured them it was legal to do so. Furthermore, the opinion does nothing to clarify what constitutes a "SKS with detachable magazine." Must the magazine be affixed to the rifle? With the rifle? The rifle in the owner's gun safe and the magazine buried somewhere in a box of miscellaneous parts in his/her garage? On CBS's "60 Minutes" on February 5, 1995, Senator Dianne Feinstein declared, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright [firearms] ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it." Thanks to Dan Lungren, Feinstein's fantasy is well on its way to becoming reality. Whether Mr. Lungren's fantasy of currying favor with the loony Left at the Los Angeles Times becomes reality, remains to be seen. What Should I Do? 1. If a law enforcement officer attempts to confiscate your SKS, live to fight another day. DO NOT RESIST! Do get a receipt, though. 2. Contact Governor Wilson and firmly but politely express your outrage at this situation. In addition to infringing the Second Amendment, the AG's position creates a taking of private property without just compensation (Fifth Amendment) and an ex post facto application of the Assault Weapons Control Act (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3). Gov. Pete Wilson State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-445-2864 FAX: 916-445-4633 3. Become active in your local NRA Members Council. You may call the Silicon Valley Members Council at 408-235-9175, 24 hours a day, for up to date legislative information or for information on contacting a Members Council in your area. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: FWD: Gun Confiscation in CA -Forwarded Date: 21 Jan 1998 03:43:27 -0700 At 07:08 PM 1/20/98 -0700, you wrote: >Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id SAA07600; Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:01:08 -0500 (EST) >Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 18:01:08 -0500 (EST) >Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) > id sma007564; Tue Jan 20 18:00:15 1998 >Message-Id: <2c14d524.34c50dee@aol.com> >Errors-To: listproc@fs1.mainstream.com >Reply-To: EdgarSuter@aol.com >Originator: noban@mainstream.net >Sender: noban@Mainstream.net >Precedence: bulk >From: EdgarSuter >To: Multiple recipients of list >Subject: FWD: Gun Confiscation in CA >X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas >X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list > >Confiscation Comes to California >Lungren fulfills Feinstein's fantasy > > >By Daryl N. Davis > >> They said it would never happen. Any suggestion that it would was derided >as "NRA paranoia." They told us they only wanted "reasonable controls." > > Well, it has happened. Gun confiscation is now the law in California. >Thank you, Dan Lungren! >What Should I Do? > >1. If a law enforcement officer attempts to confiscate your SKS, live to >fight another day. DO NOT RESIST! Do get a receipt, though. > >2. Contact Governor Wilson and firmly but politely express your outrage at >this situation. In addition to infringing the Second Amendment, the AG's >position creates a taking of private property without just compensation >(Fifth Amendment) and an ex post facto application of the Assault Weapons >Control Act (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3). >Gov. Pete Wilson >State Capitol >Sacramento, CA 95814 >Phone: 916-445-2864 >FAX: 916-445-4633 > >3. Become active in your local NRA Members Council. You may call the >Silicon Valley Members Council at 408-235-9175, 24 hours a day, for up to >date legislative information or for information on contacting a Members >Council in your area. More friggin' appeasement! I'm sure the Jews in Germany got "receipts" for their guns, gold, and money too. And guess what? They're all dead, and 50+ years later their grandchildren are still trying to get it back. I would never presume to tell someone else what to do, especially when it comes to matters of life and death. But, as for me, they'll get my guns from my cold, dead fingers, and no other way. And the NRA won't get a penny, unless they want to scavenge it from my cold, dead corpse before the asset forfeiture folks beat them to it. For shame! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. PO Box 1185 Sandy, UT 84091-1185 http://www.therighter.com An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. -Winston Churchill - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: [Vin_Suprynowicz@lvrj.com: Jan. 23 column - Horiuchi] Date: 21 Jan 1998 11:23:17 -0700 The latest from Vin... ----BEGIN FORWARDED MESSGE---- FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JAN. 23, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz 'Protecting him, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders ...' What does the Declaration of Independence actually consist of? Sure, from our school days, we may remember that "these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States." But that's only the last paragraph. Prior to that, Mr. Jefferson and his co-signers spent 29 paragraphs doing ... what? "Declaring their causes," of course! We did this -- anyone would have the right to do this -- because of a "long train of Abuses and Usurpations," remember? "He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their Substance." Remember? "He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures. "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power. "He has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of Pretended Legislation: "For quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us: "For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States. ..." This is not just schoolboy stuff. A message etched in fire from our patrimony, these words tell us how Americans shall know when they are again justified in declaring themselves free of a parasitical tyrant. Fast forward 216 years, to the late summer of 1992. Part-time gunsmith Randy Weaver had failed to show up for a court date, after being entrapped by ATF agents hoping to turn him into a snitch, to spy on a nearby CHURCH. Federal marshals now trespass on the Weaver family's private Idaho property (the marshals carry no warrant this day and are not there to make an arrest), and open fire when they're spotted by the family dog, killing the dog, and also Weaver's 14-year-old son, Sammy. A federal marshal is also killed, either in self defense or by fratricidal fire. (The federals never release any shell casings or autopsy results for independent review -- but a jury acquits Weaver and family friend Kevin Harris in the death.) The federal government answers by flooding the property with hundreds more trespassers in full combat gear. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi then shoots at Weaver and Harris as the pair races back to his front door, after paying their respects to young Sammy's body in an outbuilding. One of Horiuchi's shots passes through the window of the kitchen door, shooting away much of the brain of Weaver's wife Vicky, for whom there are no warrants outstanding. At the moment prior to her death (which comes after 30 seconds of blood-curdling screams), Vicki Weaver was holding her baby in her arms in her own kitchen, threatening no one. Unaware they have murdered Vicky Weaver, federal agents continue to shout taunting remarks at her dead body, in the full hearing of her children, for days. The federal government eventually pays Weaver -- acquitted of murder and all other major charges -- and his children $3.1 million in damages for these wrongful actions. After a year-long review, the U.S. Justice Department decides in 1994 not to charge sniper Lon Horiuchi with any crime. Like the Germans at Nuremberg, they declare he was "just following orders." But, just before the five-year statute of limitations is due to toll, in August of 1997, Boundary County (Idaho) Prosecutor Denise Woodbury bravely files a charge of involuntary manslaughter against this armed trooper, who has long been quartered among us as part of the 60,000-strong federal "standing army" of FBI, DEA, ATF and other Einsatzgruppen troopers. Here now is the vital test. Will this "king's officer" be allowed to stand trial on the evidence, before a randomly selected jury of Idahoans, in their own state court? Or will the new king "protect him, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which he has committed on the Inhabitants of these States"? Jan. 7, 1998: The Associated Press informs us: "BONNERS FERRY, Idaho (AP) -- A judge today ordered an FBI sharpshooter to stand trial on a state manslaughter charge for the death of white separatist Randy Weaver's wife in the 1992 siege at Ruby Ridge. ... "Magistrate Judge Quentin Harden ... scheduled a Feb. 13 arraignment before state Judge James Michaud." So far so good. But now the inevitable: Jan. 12, 1998: "BOISE, Idaho (AP) -- FBI sharpshooter Lon Horiuchi won his bid today to be tried in federal court on the state charge brought against him in the death of white separatist Randy Weaver's wife in the 1992 siege at Ruby Ridge. ... "Horiuchi, supported by the U.S. Justice Department, petitioned the federal court to take over the case on grounds that the transfer is allowed when federal agents are prosecuted for conduct in their official capacity. "U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge agreed. ... Neither murder nor manslaughter, of course, is a federal crime. State courts have sole jurisdiction to try such cases. Clearly, the federals want jurisdiction here so they can either dismiss the case, or (if a public outcry renders that unwise) so limit the evidence admitted that the question to be decided ends up nothing more than "Was Agent Horiuchi obeying what he believed was a lawful order at the time?" Sort of like letting Martin Borman set the ground rules for the Nuremberg trials. Modern federal judges -- like Judge Smith in the trial of the Waco survivors -- are famous for declaring "The United States government isn't going to be put on trial in my courtroom." As one of my e-mail correspondents puts it: "The test for whether one is living in a police state is that those who are charged with enforcing the law are allowed to break the laws with impunity." This -- along with Janet Reno and her Waco Killers still roaming free, of course -- is the great modern test of whether this Union can long endure. If Lon Horiuchi walks (or even if some untimely "accident" allows him to escape justice) while the surviving VICTIMS of the federal assault at Waco are still serving long prison terms, after being found INNOCENT of all major charges, then what shall we say to the patriot who advises: "If you see a federal agent committing a crime, don't bother turning him in, just shoot him down like a dog. Kill him on the spot, and walk away without giving it a moment's thought." Showing our respect for due process, do we continue to say: "Oh no, that would be wrong. Just turn him in to the proper authorities, and justice will be done"? Do we, really? Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin@lvrj.com. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams ----END FORWARDED MESSAGE---- -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious." -- Joseph Goebbels - Nazi Propaganda Minister - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Monica Lewinsky -Forwarded Date: 22 Jan 1998 09:09:57 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id IAA19174; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 08:11:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma019158; Thu Jan 22 08:11:36 1998 Message-Id: <34C74266.599AD96D@inetnebr.com> Errors-To: listproc@fs1.mainstream.com Reply-To: lball@inetnebr.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list Does anybody have any information on this gal, such as any history of attempted suicide, or indications of being accident prone? Is she given to visiting D.C. area parks after dark or sleeping on railroad tracks? Has she EVER been to Mena, Arkansas? Inquiring minds want to know. Larry Ball lball@inetnebr.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Rob Bishop Date: 22 Jan 1998 15:43:27 -0700 Hi all! I've noticed (as probably many of you have too!) that the Trib has published a daily stream of letters condemning Rob Bishop, and has failed to publish even ONE letter supporting him. I suspect that their bigotry is showing once again, but I can't formally complain unless I know that they have actually received letters supporting Bishop. (I know they received mine, but that's not good enough!) If you know of anyone who sent a letter to the Trib in support of Bishop, please let me know. If you're willing to send me a copy of the letter, that's great, but certainly not essential. (If I get enough, I'll batchfile them over and try to shame the Trib into equal time.) Names are helpful, but not necessary. Please include the approximate date the letter was sent if you can. I haven't been following the DesNews. Are they being reasonable or are they engaging in the same sort of chicanery? If it's easier for you to fax info or articles, my fax is 801-566-1625. PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANY INTERESTED PERSONS OR NEWSGROUPS! Thanks! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com "You should always believe all you read in the newspapers, as this makes them more interesting." --Dame Rose Macauley, author - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: AL: Massive Gun Registration Date: 22 Jan 1998 21:16:00 -0700 Any imminent danger of such an atrocity in Utah? Immediate Action Needed: Alabama "Brady" Check Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 http://www.gunowners.org Alabama Action Alert: January 21, 1998 A massive new statewide gun control agency is about to be established inside the Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center (ACJIC) -- unless you act quickly to stop it. This is being done as part of legislation enacting so-called "Brady" checks. The legislation is contained in a twin package of identical bills, H.B. 32 in the Alabama House of Representatives, and S.B. 128 in the Alabama State Senate. Both bills were railroaded (without hearings) through committee just days into the new 1998 session. Floor action could come as early as tomorrow. Under the proposed new law: 1. All retail gun buyers, regardless of the type of gun being purchased, will be registered and have their personal information sent to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. 2. A $15.00 fee (actually a tax) will be imposed on each gun you buy from a dealer. 3. Your right to buy a gun in an emergency can be denied by ACJIC bureaucrats acting on inaccurate information. 4. The state gun control agency will be used to identify citizens with misdemeanors so their guns can be confiscated under the 1996 federal Lautenberg gun ban. GOA has learned that elements of both the House and Senate leadership have signed-off on this horror. They are using their powers to try to ram it through rapidly before an uproar develops that would discourage passage-- this is an election year. [snip] *********************************************************** Are you receiving this as a cross-post? To be certain of getting up-to-the-minute information, please consider joining the GOA E-mail Alert Network directly. The service is free, your address remains confidential, and the volume is quite low: five messages a week would be a busy week indeed. To subscribe, simply send a message (or forward this notice) to goamail@gunowners.org and include your state of residence in either the subject line or the body. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Rob Bishop -Forwarded Date: 24 Jan 1998 09:31:00 -0700 Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0xvVLZ-0004CA-00; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 15:43:41 -0700 Received: from mail.xmission.com [198.60.22.22] by lists.xmission.com with smtp (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0xvVLW-0004Bg-00; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 15:43:38 -0700 Received: from mars.aros.net [207.173.16.20] by mail.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0xvVLV-0006bL-00; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 15:43:37 -0700 Received: from sarahtho (xm1-0.slc.aros.net [207.173.24.145]) by mars.aros.net (8.8.7/8.8.4) with SMTP id PAA08762 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 15:42:48 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980122154327.00d534b0@aros.net> X-Sender: righter@aros.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com Hi all! I've noticed (as probably many of you have too!) that the Trib has published a daily stream of letters condemning Rob Bishop, and has failed to publish even ONE letter supporting him. I suspect that their bigotry is showing once again, but I can't formally complain unless I know that they have actually received letters supporting Bishop. (I know they received mine, but that's not good enough!) If you know of anyone who sent a letter to the Trib in support of Bishop, please let me know. If you're willing to send me a copy of the letter, that's great, but certainly not essential. (If I get enough, I'll batchfile them over and try to shame the Trib into equal time.) Names are helpful, but not necessary. Please include the approximate date the letter was sent if you can. I haven't been following the DesNews. Are they being reasonable or are they engaging in the same sort of chicanery? If it's easier for you to fax info or articles, my fax is 801-566-1625. PLEASE FORWARD THIS TO ANY INTERESTED PERSONS OR NEWSGROUPS! Thanks! Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com "You should always believe all you read in the newspapers, as this makes them more interesting." --Dame Rose Macauley, author - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: [Fwd: (fwd) Impeachment.org] -Forwarded Date: 26 Jan 1998 18:21:56 -0700 Send your Rep. a message to impeach Clinton @ http://www.impeachment.org/ Received: from fs1.mainstream.net by wvc (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA06979; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 20:04:21 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id WAA23248; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 22:10:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma023203; Sat Jan 24 22:09:33 1998 Message-Id: <34CAA520.A7D739C4@inetnebr.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: lball@inetnebr.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------1D6CBB37CB91103AA8DBC86D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --------------1D6CBB37CB91103AA8DBC86D Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: Received: from oak.zilker.net (daemon@oak.zilker.net [198.252.182.129]) by falcon.inetnebr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA24889 for ; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:56:06 -0600 (CST) Received: by oak.zilker.net (8.8.5/zilker.1.127) id OAA04309; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:46:16 -0600 (CST) Received: from insync.net by oak.zilker.net (8.8.5/zilker.1.127) id OAA04303; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:46:12 -0600 (CST) Received: from 209-113-28-2.insync.net (209-113-28-2.insync.net [209.113.28.2]) by insync.net (8.8.8/8.7.1) with SMTP id OAA27703; Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:46:08 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <34d052f7.11274010@mailhost.insync.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-texas-gun-owners@zilker.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: texas-gun-owners@zilker.net Posted to texas-gun-owners by chasm@insync.net (schuetzen) On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 21:19:20 +0000, "ICE" wrote: http://www.impeachment.org/ For those who have the time and inclination to get on the bandwagon. -- Charles L Hamilton, chasm@insync.net, Houston, TX Moderator of Cast Bullet and Black Powder elists X-No-Archive: Yes -- For help with Majordomo commands, send a message to majordomo@zilker.net with the word help in the message body. --------------1D6CBB37CB91103AA8DBC86D-- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andelain Subject: Re: AL: Massive Gun Registration Date: 25 Jan 1998 16:04:10 -0700 > ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: AL: Massive Gun Registration > Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:57:24 -0700 > From: Andelain > Organization: Burrito Banditos Inc. > To: utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com > References: <8E7D4FC.01F5007991.uuout@ucs.org> > > SCOTT BERGESON wrote: > > > > Any imminent danger of such an atrocity in Utah? > By "imminent" do you mean "how long ago did this > happen here?" > > > > Date: Wednesday, January 21, 1998 2:19 PM > > > > Immediate Action Needed: Alabama "Brady" Check > > > > Gun Owners of America E-Mail/FAX Alert > > 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 > > Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 > > http://www.gunowners.org > > > > Alabama Action Alert: January 21, 1998 > > > > A massive new statewide gun control agency is about to be > > established inside the Alabama Criminal Justice Information > > Center (ACJIC) -- unless you act quickly to stop it. In Utah -> Bureau of Criminal I...er, well it's BCI Background Check International? Whatever, it's the "instant check" folks. > > > > > > 1. All retail gun buyers, regardless of the type of gun > > being purchased, will be registered and have their > > personal information sent to U.S. Attorney General > > Janet Reno. Handgun purchases in Utah go thru the BCI check. > > > > 2. A $15.00 fee (actually a tax) will be imposed on each > > gun you buy from a dealer. Here it's $10? Something like that. > > > > 3. Your right to buy a gun in an emergency can be denied > > by ACJIC bureaucrats acting on inaccurate information. In an emergency, not in an emergency, whatever. Same applies here. I know one guy who was arrested 20-25 years ago for walking past a "crime scene". The charges were dismissed that evening. He had to pay $150 dollars to get the arrest "expunged". After three months from the first denial from BCI, he finally was _allowed_ to purchase his CZ. > > > > 4. The state gun control agency will be used to identify > > citizens with misdemeanors so their guns can be > > confiscated under the 1996 federal Lautenberg gun ban. Misdemeanors, false arrests, traffic ticket warrents, etc. This has been going on in Utah since 1992..... - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: [Fwd: (fwd) Impeachment.org] -Forwarded Date: 26 Jan 1998 23:32:47 -0700 At 06:21 PM 1/26/98 -0700, you wrote: >Send your Rep. a message to impeach Clinton @ > >http://www.impeachment.org/ I did. I received a letter from Cong. Merrill Cook two days ago. He said consideration of impeachment was premature. If I can find the actual letter, I'll post it. Sarah - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: ALERT: HB69 Date: 26 Jan 1998 18:17:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Cc: Crankee@ix.netcom.com, John Welle Now we have a number for this totally unnecessary legislation. HB69, which says in part: "Private Property Owners and Houses of Worship Right to Prohibit Dangerous Weapons", sponsored by Representative Robert Killpack, "(1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm . . . may not knowingly or intentionally: (a) transport a dangerous weapon into a house of worship; or (b) enter or remain in a house of worship while in possession of a dangerous weapon. (2) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person had permission of the church or organization operating the house of worship to possess the dangerous weapon in or to transport it into the house of worship. (3) A violation of this section is: (a) an infraction; or (b) a class C misdemeanor if notice that dangerous weapons are prohibited has been given. . . . - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: ALERT: HB69 Date: 27 Jan 1998 14:35:08 -0700 At 06:17 PM 1/26/98 -0700, you wrote: > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:57:17 -0700 >From: Jim Dexter >To: LPUtah Forum >Cc: Crankee@ix.netcom.com, John Welle > >Now we have a number for this totally unnecessary legislation. >HB69, which says in part: > >"Private Property Owners and Houses of Worship Right to Prohibit >Dangerous Weapons", sponsored by Representative Robert Killpack, >"(1) A person, including a person licensed to carry a concealed firearm . . . >may not knowingly or intentionally: >(a) transport a dangerous weapon into a house of worship; or >(b) enter or remain in a house of worship while in possession of a >dangerous weapon. >(2) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person had >permission of the church or organization operating the house of worship to >possess the dangerous weapon in or to transport it into the house of worship. >(3) A violation of this section is: >(a) an infraction; or >(b) a class C misdemeanor if notice that dangerous weapons are prohibited >has been given. . . . Notice in particular that even if you have explicit permission, or even a formal _request_ that you be armed in a "house of worship", you may still be prosecuted, and only after you exhaust your time and money in the legal system may you plead the "defense" so generously offered in (3). It's certainly a good thing Utah has such a strong tradition of religious freedom! The following letter to the editor was sent to the SL Trib on 1/24. I expect that, as always, it will be suppressed. Public Forum The Salt Lake Tribune Historically, Utah has been known for its religious tolerance. Unfortunately, Rep. Killpack intends to bring the very concept of religious freedom to an abrupt end during this legislataive session. Killpack's legislation, HB 69, would prohibit firearms in any house of worship in the state of Utah, regardless of the religion or its teachings, and without exception. It is absolutely not the prerogative of the state to dictate how anyone should worship. The Utah Constitution states clearly: "The rights of conscience shall never be infringed. The State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.." My religion commands: "If a man riseth up to kill you, kill him first". My conscience dictates that I be armed and prepared to defend myself at all times, including during worship. Do the state legislature and the people of this state truly wish to infringe my right to worship according to the dictates of my conscience? If we allow the State to prohibit firearms in houses of worship, how long will it be before it bans wine for sacraments or declares that removing shoes to enter a mosque is a "public health hazard"? Any individual house of worship may restrict whatever it chooses, but the state absolutely must not do so. However, any churches, synagogues or mosques that choose to prohibit firearms should realize they are advertising themselves as easy prey. Hate-filled religious bigots will be encouraged to enter houses of worship and murder devout, law-abiding citizens and their children because they may do so without risk of resistance. While HB 69 may have good intentions, it is a flagrant violation of religious freedom and will actually endanger the lives of those who choose to worship in public. It should be opposed by citizens, clergy, and legislators. Sarah Thompson, M.D. Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security..." The Declaration of Independence - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: ALERT: HB69 (fwd) Date: 28 Jan 1998 08:11:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- One may also note that the "I had permission defense" in HB 69 applies only to one section and not the other section. However, a good criminal defense lawyer might be able to make the defense apply to both sections on constitutional grounds. But noting the disparity in committee might slow the bill down. Scooter! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chardy@ES.COM (Charles Hardy) Subject: Know your enemies (and friends) Date: 28 Jan 1998 10:29:31 -0700 From a recent Rolly & Wells [Image] [Image] [Image] Monday, January 26, 1998 [Image] [Image] Rolly & Wells: Guns Or No Guns? BY PAUL ROLLY AND JOANN JACOBSEN-WELLS GUNS OR NO GUNS? Republican State Chairman Rob Bishop said recently that university officials who ban guns from their campuses are comparable to the racial bigots of the early 1960s who tried to keep schools segregated. Inspired by that statement, we asked elected officials, many Republican, this question: ``Should colleges and universities have the right to ban guns from their campuses? Their responses: -- Gov. Mike Leavitt: ``Yes. The university should set policies to create a safe campus environment just as I set policies to create a safe environment in state government.'' -- Sandy Mayor Tom Dolan: ``I have a problem with people carrying weapons for any reason in an academic setting.'' -- U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch: ``If people have licenses, under the law they have a right to carry a weapon. But it is inadvisable to carry a gun at a university that has a policy against it.'' -- Utah Senate President Lane Beattie: ``No. Colleges and universities are public buildings for public access. Restricting constitutional rights in those institutions crosses the line. But I do believe in restrictions for public [elementary and secondary] schools.'' -- Salt Lake County Commission Chairman Brent Overson: ``Yes. It is a private property rights issue. It is the same thing as posting a sign in your yard that says, `No Hunting.' '' -- Logan Mayor Doug Thompson: ``If they perceive a problem, they should have that right. If the problem isn't presenting itself, I don't see a need to ban guns from campuses.'' -- U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett: ``As a U.S. senator, this is not a federal issue. As a Utahn, I support the right of each university to make its own rules.'' -- Salt Lake County Commissioner Mary Callaghan: ``No. If you do that then you have to start moving into commercial buildings, other public buildings, on the street and eventually in your own home. The ripple effect could be disturbing. We need to focus on crime and the criminal rather than punishing law-abiding citizens.'' -- Murray Mayor Daniel Snarr: ``Yes.'' -- Utah House Speaker Mel Brown: ``No. The Legislature sets state law. We set a law on the use of concealed weapons. Until we authorize somebody else to change that law, our law ought to be abided by.'' -- Salt Lake County Commissioner Randy Horiuchi: ``Absolutely.'' -- Salt Lake City Mayor Deedee Corradini: ``Yes. It is appropriate to set policies to guarantee safety in churches, schools and businesses.'' -- Rep. Chris Cannon: ``Yes. While Americans have the right to bear arms, there is a conflicting right for churches, universities and other private property holders to ban firearms on their premises.'' -- Ogden Mayor Glenn J. Mecham: ``I think that is an appropriate prohibition. There are certain people who are charged with providing security. That is challenging. They should not have to deal with unforeseeable armed people.'' -- Rep. Merrill Cook: ``As a congressman, I am aware of the growing debate on this issue, but it's a state issue. The federal government doesn't have any jurisdiction here, and I hesitate to offer a federal solution to a problem that should be handled by the governor and the Legislature.'' -- Provo Mayor Lewis K. Billings: ``I generally favor less governmental intervention and restriction. Part of what makes this such a difficult debate is that no matter what government does, there will be an interference in free right and choice. If you allow organizations and institutions to restrict individuals from carrying arms, you are interfering with an individual's right and freedom of choice. On the other hand, if you don't allow institutions to enact the rules and policies they choose, you have interfered in their affairs.'' (Our translation: ``Maybe.'') [Image] [Monday Navigation Bar] [Image] [Image] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- © Copyright 1998, The Salt Lake Tribune All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune. -------------------------------------------------- Contact The Salt Lake Tribune or Utah OnLine by clicking here. -- Charles C. Hardy | If my employer has an opinion on | these things I'm fairly certain 801.588.7200 (work) | I'm not the one he'd have express it. "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825; considered academically to be an expert commentator on the Constitution. He was offered the position of the first Attorney General of the United States, by President Washington. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Know your enemies (and friends) Date: 28 Jan 1998 11:37:26 -0700 Charles Hardy wrote: > > -- Salt Lake County Commission Chairman Brent Overson: ``Yes. It > is a private property rights issue. It is the same thing as posting a > sign in your yard that says, `No Hunting.' '' > -- Rep. Chris Cannon: ``Yes. While Americans have the right to > bear arms, there is a conflicting right for churches, universities > and other private property holders to ban firearms on their > premises.'' [Non-linearity mode ON] Private Property Rights!?!?!?!?!?! When did the U become Overson's or Cannon's Private Property! Arrogant *@^%$*#*&^%'s - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Will Thompson Subject: Re: Know your enemies (and friends) Date: 28 Jan 1998 11:44:56 -0700 Will Thompson wrote: > > Charles Hardy wrote: > > > > > -- Salt Lake County Commission Chairman Brent Overson: ``Yes. It > > is a private property rights issue. It is the same thing as posting a > > sign in your yard that says, `No Hunting.' '' Functionary -> "County commission" Me-> "Yes, I just read a quote from Commissioner Overson that banning guns from the university is a private property rights thing..." Functionary-> "yes" Me-> "I'd like to as the commish when the University was deeded over to him? Last I heard, it was _public_ property, paid for by me tax dollars...along with the commish's salary, 'sfar as that goes...." Functionary-> "I'll pass that on to him." Claire? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Box Elder County Access Plan Date: 28 Jan 1998 13:04:08 -0700 There is a meeting on Friday January 30th 5p.m. to 8p.m. at the Brigham City Community Center 20 North 300 West. The meeting subject is about land access in west Box Elder county. A group was formed by the county commissioners to study access issues between the public and landowners. One of the members on this committee called to let us know that the proposal submitted is not for access but more for road closure. Everyone who travels out west in Box Elder county for any reason should attend this meeting to see if the roads they use are scheduled for closure. I was told the proposal will close several hundred miles of roads and close off access to public land. The road closures are being proposed under the premise of protecting wildlife during times of high risk and vulnerability. We, as the public and sportsmen, need to attend this meeting to hear the proposal first hand and determine if it addresses the issues. Please let everyone who uses or has used roads out west know about this meeting. This will be our only chance to review this proposal and we need a large number of support. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Know your enemies (and friends) Date: 28 Jan 1998 23:28:51 -0700 >>From a recent Rolly & Wells > > =20 > [Image] [Image] Monday, January 26, 1998 [Image] [Image] > > Rolly & Wells: Guns Or No Guns? > > BY PAUL ROLLY AND JOANN > JACOBSEN-WELLS > > GUNS OR NO GUNS? > Republican State Chairman Rob Bishop said recently that > university officials who ban guns from their campuses are comparable > to the racial bigots of the early 1960s who tried to keep schools > segregated. > Inspired by that statement, we asked elected officials, many > Republican, this question: ``Should colleges and universities have > the right to ban guns from their campuses? > Their responses: and mine..... > -- Gov. Mike Leavitt: ``Yes. The university should set policies > to create a safe campus environment just as I set policies to create > a safe environment in state government.'' And policies should be based on facts. Studies show that ""allowing" concealed carry decreases violent crime. > -- Sandy Mayor Tom Dolan: ``I have a problem with people carrying > weapons for any reason in an academic setting.'' "I have a problem with people exercising free speech for any reason in an academic setting." > -- U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch: ``If people have licenses, under the > law they have a right to carry a weapon. But it is inadvisable to > carry a gun at a university that has a policy against it.'' Licenses? Since when do you need a license to exercise a right.? But in any case, it is inadvisable to exercise constitutionally guaranteed rights when others don't like it. > -- Utah Senate President Lane Beattie: ``No. Colleges and > universities are public buildings for public access. Restricting > constitutional rights in those institutions crosses the line. But I > do believe in restrictions for public [elementary and secondary] > schools.'' Which are NOT public buildings for public access? The kiddies are already barred from carrying firearms, anyway. > -- Salt Lake County Commission Chairman Brent Overson: ``Yes. It > is a private property rights issue. It is the same thing as posting a > sign in your yard that says, `No Hunting.' '' Or "No Niggers"? > -- Logan Mayor Doug Thompson: ``If they perceive a problem, they > should have that right. If the problem isn't presenting itself, I > don't see a need to ban guns from campuses.'' Perception isn't reality. And there's no "should" when it comes to rights. They exist or they don't. > -- U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett: ``As a U.S. senator, this is not a > federal issue. As a Utahn, I support the right of each university to > make its own rules.'' Rules, yes. As long as they're within the law. > -- Salt Lake County Commissioner Mary Callaghan: ``No. If you do > that then you have to start moving into commercial buildings, other > public buildings, on the street and eventually in your own home. The > ripple effect could be disturbing. We need to focus on crime and the > criminal rather than punishing law-abiding citizens.'' Brava! > -- Murray Mayor Daniel Snarr: ``Yes.'' No! > -- Utah House Speaker Mel Brown: ``No. The Legislature sets state > law. We set a law on the use of concealed weapons. Until we authorize > somebody else to change that law, our law ought to be abided by.'' Bravo! > -- Salt Lake County Commissioner Randy Horiuchi: ``Absolutely.'' Absolutely not! > -- Salt Lake City Mayor Deedee Corradini: ``Yes. It is > appropriate to set policies to guarantee safety in churches, schools > and businesses.'' See Gov. Leavitt. But are you really willing to _guarantee_ my safety? Even if I slip on the ice? Even if I get food poisoning in the synagogue? Better start raising funds again! > -- Rep. Chris Cannon: ``Yes. While Americans have the right to > bear arms, there is a conflicting right for churches, universities > and other private property holders to ban firearms on their > premises.'' Uh, Chris? You do own a good bit of Utah. But not the University. It's not private property, it's a public institution. And remember back when you took that oath? The part about not prohibiting the free exercise of religion? Believe it or not, that applies to churches. > -- Ogden Mayor Glenn J. Mecham: ``I think that is an appropriate > prohibition. There are certain people who are charged with providing > security. That is challenging. They should not have to deal with > unforeseeable armed people.'' The ones with permits are forseeable. It's the criminals who are unforeseeable. > -- Rep. Merrill Cook: ``As a congressman, I am aware of the > growing debate on this issue, but it's a state issue. The federal > government doesn't have any jurisdiction here, and I hesitate to > offer a federal solution to a problem that should be handled by the > governor and the Legislature.'' Darn! I thought I'd finally escaped the gun issue.! > -- Provo Mayor Lewis K. Billings: ``I generally favor less > governmental intervention and restriction. Part of what makes this > such a difficult debate is that no matter what government does, there > will be an interference in free right and choice. If you allow > organizations and institutions to restrict individuals from carrying > arms, you are interfering with an individual's right and freedom of > choice. On the other hand, if you don't allow institutions to enact > the rules and policies they choose, you have interfered in their > affairs.'' > (Our translation: ``Maybe.'') I hear there may be an opening in the White House soon. Nice try! > =A9 Copyright 1998, The Salt Lake Tribune > > All material found on Utah OnLine is copyrighted The Salt Lake > Tribune and associated news services. No material may be reproduced > or reused without explicit permission from The Salt Lake Tribune. Sarah Thompson, M.D. Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com "You should always believe all you read in the newspapers,=20 as this makes them more interesting." --Dame Rose Macauley, author - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Hallmark Pulls "April Morning" Date: 29 Jan 1998 20:35:00 -0700 "APRIL MORNING" - A Samuel Goldwyn Home Entertainment Production released through Hallmark Home Entertainment. The True Story of the birth of a nation. Revealed against the backdrop of the British attack on Lexington and Concord, April 19, 1775, are the lives and personalities of those who stood that April Morning. Tommy Lee Jones plays Moses Cooper, a father of 15-year old Adam, played by Chad Lowe. Cooper is frightened. The British have harrassed and intimidated the citizens in the area. Guns, powder and shot have been found hidden in merchandize moving between the towns and villages. Cooper knows that his leadership role in the Lexington Militia will soon be put to the test. Rip Torn plays Solomon Chandler, a merchant and war veteran who has fought against the French and the Indians. Chandler has been stopped and beaten by redcoats. His cargo has been broken into by British soldiers--guns have been found. The story begins on April 18. The events of that day in Lexington will bring about the decision for the Lexington Militia to stand as word comes that the British are coming. Young Adam Cooper is about to become a man. In one sensitive scene, Moses Cooper instructs his son how to prepare for shooting a man. "Don't count the pellets...feel the weight...you won't have time if they are shooting at you." Adams loves Ruth, played by Merideth Salanger. Their talk is about the future, hopeful and bright. The young lovers cannot know what is about to happen. The morning of April 19 dawns quietly and peaceful. The militia presents itself on the Lexington green as in the distance the sound of drums beat out march cadence. The rattle of armor and swords and the hoofbeats of horses near. Nervous and frightened the militia waits, but absent from the group is Solomon Chandler, the braggart who has spoken only of his war experience and who secretly wants to retaliate against the British for what he has suffered. Chandler hides behind a stone wall, within rifle distance of the British who have arrayed themselves in front of the militia. The British commander orders the militia to disperse.... tensions rise.... the British soldiers are nervous and frightened.... and then a shot rings out, a shot that will be heard around the world. April Morning is more than a movie. It is an echo from the past that finds its place in America in 1998. Any American who has wondered if parallels exist between our time and theirs must see April Morning. After viewing it, all doubts will be gone. Fathers and mothers need to view April Morning together. There can be no doubt that what is about to happen in America will plunge entire families into crisis. Review by Norman Olson, Commander, Northern Michigan Regional Militia and Pastor, Freedom Church *************************************************** But April Morning isn't available, even though Hallmark has had the authority to release it. In fact, about six months ago, a small number of the videos were released, only to have the release stopped for some unknown reason. The people at Hallmark Home Entertainment won't explain why the release was halted. I suspect that the emotional nature and historical accuracy of April Morning makes it politically dangerous. Patriot and Militia people across America need to phone Hallmark Home Entertainment at 213-634-3000 and demand that April Morning be released. Merchants need to provide this video in their shops. Churches need to encourage their congregations to view it. I encourage people everywhere to inquire as to why the release of this movie has been stopped. Perhaps the best review I can give is to tell you "The federal government does not want you to see April Morning." Knowing this, I am sure it is something you'll want to do. Kind Regards, Norm Olson - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Fwd: Viva Vermont!! Date: 29 Jan 1998 20:35:00 -0700 Printed in Investors Business Daily on 01/8/97. By MORGAN 0. REYNOLDS & H. STERLING BURNEFF Nationally, gun-rights advocates have been on the defensive since the early '90s. But in the states, where the fight against crime is won or lost, they're winning the debate. That's because they have the facts on their side. Thirty-one states now let citizens carry concealed weapons-up from just nine states in '86. Have these "right-to-carry" laws made the public safer, or have they caused a sharp drop in public safety, as opponents warned? The standard argument against "concealed carry" laws is that there is no good reason for the average Joe to carry a gun. But federal courts have ruled that police aren t obliged to protect individuals from crime. That means citizens are ultimately responsible for their own defense. But do concealed weapons deter crime? Criminals commit 10 million violent crimes a year. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck found that victims use handguns about 1.9 million times in self-defense. Criminals weigh the costs of the crime against the benefits. You don't have to be a criminal mastermind to know that the possibility of a concealed weapon tilts the odds in the victim's favor. Research shows that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to be injured as those who don't. A recent study by John Lott and David Mustard of the University of Chicago published in the Journal of Legal Studies bears this out. They found that concealed handgun laws reduced murder by 8.5% and severe assault by 7% from 1977 to '92. Had "right-to-carry" laws been in effect throughout the country, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders and 60,000 fewer assaults every year. Vermont has long had the least restrictive firearms-carry laws. Citizens there can carry guns either openly or concealed without any permit. Perhaps in part because of its liberal gun policies, Vermont has among the lowest violent crime numbers in the country. In 1980, when murders and robberies in the U.S. had soared to 10 and 251 per 100,000 people, respectively, Vermont's murder rate was 22% of the national average and its robbery rate was 15%. In 1996, Vermont's crime rates were among the lowest in the country: 25% of the national murder rate, 8% of the national robbery rate. Another objection to concealed-carry laws is that they'll boost impulse killings-fostering a "wild West" mentality with more shootings and deaths as people vent their anger with pistols instead of fists. Yet FBI data show that killings stemming from arguments are falling as a share of all homicides. In fact, concealed-weapon permit holders are involved in fewer incidents than off-duty police officers. Consider also: Dade County, Fla., kept detailed records for six years. Of 21,000 carry permit holders, there was no reported incident of a permit holder injuring an innocent person. Virginia issued more than 50,000 permits since it passed a right-to-carry law in '95. In that time, not one permit holder has been convicted of a crime, and violent crime has dropped. Opponents are left to argue that concealed-carry laws will put guns in untrained hands and accidents will go up. But there has been no rise in accidental shootings in counties with right-to-carry laws. Nationwide, there are about 1,400 accidental firearms deaths annually -a figure far lower than the number of deaths blamed on medical errors or car accidents. And data show that civilians are even more careful with firearms than police officers are. There are only about 30 mistaken civilian shootings in the U.S. each year. The police commit more than three times as many mistaken killings as civilians. In fact, the death rate from firearms has dropped in the last 20 years even as gun ownership has more than doubled and 22 states have passed right-to-carry laws. The fatal firearm accident rate has dropped more than 19% in the last decade, and the number of gun-related accidents among children fell to an all-time low of 185 in '94 -- down 64% since '75. Keeping honest, law-abiding people unarmed and at the mercy of armed and violent criminals was never a good idea. In the gun policy debate, gun-rights advocates can argue honestly that a general concealed-carry law is sound public policy. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Behind the Gun Control Push 2/2 Date: 29 Jan 1998 20:35:00 -0700 Australia also fully supports the proposed "Universal Declaration of Principles on Firearms" to be adopted in late 1998. A UN document dated 16 April, 1996 confirms that: "Australia would support the preparation of an appropriate declaration of principles as a means of reducing the number of firearms in the community." One of the world's most vocal supporters of gun control is Japan. For reasons of its own - including domestic concerns over the increasing use of illegal handguns by gangs - Japan pumped over a quarter of a million dollars into the 1995 Cairo UN conference in an attempt to encourage strong action on guns. Japan tabled a draft resolution that included a call to adopt a "Declaration on the Control of Firearms". The proposed Declaration included the "urgent need to establish a common strategy for effective control of firearms at the global level." The Japanese proposal was substantially reworked and extended by member countries, including Australia. Accepted, it became the Resolution entitled "Firearms Regulations for the Purposes of Crime Prevention and Public Safety". More disturbing is the survey on firearms that member states were asked to complete by September 1996, in accordance with this Resolution. Information was requested on everything to do with firearms including criminal cases, suicides, illicit trafficking, legislation and relevant initiatives for regulation. The scope of the survey was to focus specifically on "regulation as it applies to civilians" (italics are theirs, the intent being that the police and military were not to be included.) Any real plan to control guns would focus on the world's military manufacturers, but here the debate is centred on disarming civilian populations. Right at this moment, in different parts of the globe, wars are being fought with guns and other weapons of mass destruction that were manufactured by multinational corporations. We are left to ask, 'Is the UN being used by powerful elites to disarm civilian populations, so they can keep all the power (and guns) to themselves?' Referring back to the Washington Times story of 24 August, UN officials offered reasons why global gun control is necessary: "In North America, for example, firearms might be closely linked with robbery and homicides." Ian Goddard, an "anti-authoritarian" activist, responds that "in Washington D.C., with one of the highest rates of homicide in the U.S., private gun ownership is 100% illegal, giving armed thugs free rein to exploit an unarmed population. Since firearms are the last defense of private property, armed thugs profit from gun control." Another UN reason for global gun control is that "in Africa and the Balkans... gun trafficking is tied to civil unrest." They don't mention that Western multinational corporations made most of the guns. Goddard says that this reason for gun control "is an example of the need for the traffic in firearms to people in areas where they are being targeted for extermination." This is also one of the major reasons behind the establishment of the U.S.-based group Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). JPFO's published research shows that "gun control" laws cleared the way for seven major genocides between 1915 and 1980, in which 56 million persons, including millions of children, were murdered. (J.E. Simkin, Aaron Zelman and Alan M. Rice, Lethal Laws; JPFO, Inc., Milwaukee, 1994) Is the global push for civilian gun control really about crime, suicides and domestic violence, or is there a more insidious reason? Who would benefit from total civilian disarmament? Chairman Mao said "All power comes out of the barrel of the gun". Governments know that, and by disarming the civilian population, they can tax in peace with the knowledge they can't be threatened by an angry populace. In the case of tyrannical government, a monopoly of gun ownership by the authorities would strengthen their position, making it virtually impossible for the people to fight back. Perhaps we should consider the following questionnaire that was administered to 300 U.S. Marines at the Twenty-nine Palms, California Marine Base on May 10, 1994. It read: "The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over these firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government." Twenty seven percent answered affirmatively. (Source: Washington Times, 24 August; "United Nations Goes for Global Gun Control", Ian Williams Goddard; Associated Press, 23 May 1994; Australian Shooters Journal, September 1997; "1984 Revisited or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Micro-chip" by Meg Dixit and David Hoffman) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Behind the Gun Control Push 1/2 Date: 29 Jan 1998 20:35:00 -0700 ---------- Forwarded message ---------- The gUN grabbers got them in Australia, the gUN grabbers them in England, and they are off to a good start in California. (Not that N.Y. & D.C weren't good starts either). http://www.peg.apc.org/~newdawn/news45.htm#Behind Behind the Gun Control Push On 24 August the Washington Times reported that a United Nations committee passed a resolution calling for member nations to adopt measures to limit the private ownership of firearms in an effort to consolidate central government monopolies of firearm ownership. As the Times reported: "In an effort to reduce firearm-related crime and violence worldwide, a U.N. commission is drafting recommendations it hopes will curb gun ownership and use.... The draft resolution, passed without objection last month by the 54-member U.N. Economic and Social Committee, encourages member states to consider adopting regulations dealing with illegal or unsafe use of firearms." Such UN promoted regulations would include (a) licensing of all firearms businesses, (b) amnesty programs for the surrender of privately owned illegal firearms, (c) mandatory gun safety training where ownership is legal, (d) standardised penalties for firearms violations, and (e) creating a universal serial-number system to keep track of all privately owned firearms. Any of these ring a bell? As most Australians now know, these measures are already being implemented in this country. The Port Arthur massacre prompted the Federal Government to crack down on guns and, at the same time, it was able to comply with UN regulations. Global gun control has been a long time goal of the United Nations and numerous anti-gun lobbies around the world. Any plan to rid the world of weapons is a noble one, but due consideration must be given to the 'fineprint' on the current plans being drawn up by the United Nations. Back in 1994 the UN Disarmament Commission adopted a working paper that proposed tighter controls on the global gun trade. On the surface the Commission appeared to be interested in controlling guns as a way of combating international arms trafficking. A closer look reveals that the Commission was very interested in civilian disarmament. The working paper proposed "harmonization" of gun-control standards around the world and recommended that "arms permitted for civilian use... should be subject to controls at all points in the chain, from production and/or acquisition up to the time they are sold to an individual. From then on they should remain subject to monitoring and control." The paper also proposed strengthening government controls on the export and import of arms, stricter regulation of international arms dealers and establishment of a global computer database on missing and stolen arms. Luis Jamamillo of Columbia is quoted in the paper as suggesting: "[There is a need to ensure] the control and monitoring of arms allowed to civilians by means of a computerised national register listing all persons holding a permit to own or carry arms, as well as all relevant information on the individual, the arm permitted and the use of the individual intends to make of it." Australian politicians and bureaucrats involved in the push for gun control claim that it's got nothing to do with the United Nations. Lisa Gates, a policy advisor to the Deputy Prime Minister, tells us that the "United Nations has played no role in Australia's new gun laws." The Premier of South Australia, John Olsen, said on 4 April that Australia's gun laws were not influenced by the United Nations. Barry Jones tried to calm fears on 26 February, 1996 when he said that the "UN resolution (to implement "national measures in order to check the illicit circulation of small arms") is not aimed at you." What they don't say (or don't even know) is that Australia has played a major role in formulating UN resolutions and recommendations calling for restrictions on civilian gun ownership. Technically speaking, the UN didn't influence Australia's gun laws - instead, we encouraged and assisted the UN to pass resolutions restricting gun ownership on the rest of the world. A 1990 report produced by the National Committee of Violence (NCV) is one of the first documents to be noted in the conference papers of the Ninth United Nations Congress On the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held in Cairo in 1995. The conference focused on methods of controlling firearms. The NCV report is praised as having "put forward a series of recommendations on the control of firearms which have influenced the policies of Australia and its constituent states" and "contributed to the discussion of this question, notably in the United States and Canada." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: scott.bergeson@ucs.org (SCOTT BERGESON) Subject: Welfare for Criminals Date: 30 Jan 1998 08:25:00 -0700 WELFARE FOR CRIMINALS: VICTIM DISARMAMENT By Louis James Recently there was a story in the news about a bus-load of young American women in Guatemala that were robbed at gun-point. Four of them were raped. The brief story left most of the details of the victims' helpless anguish in a faraway place to the imagination. However, it was clear that the perpetrators picked their targets carefully. This sort of thing never happens to a bus-load of military advisors, but students from St. Mary's College do not usually go as well armed. And that is really the point, is it not? Crime is a risky business, and no one stays in it long if they take too many chances. Interviews with convicted criminals and broad-based studies (Kleck, Lott & Mustard) show the same thing: criminals do not like it when there is even a chance that their victims might be armed. This is a major reason why places like New York City and Washington DC, which have some of the most restrictive "gun control" laws anywhere, are so famous for violent attacks: the criminals know that law-abiding citizens are disarmed. This is why there was a rash of attacks against tourists at interstate rest areas in Florida after that state implemented its liberalized "concealed carry" gun law. The concealed carry permitees did not commit the crimes, but criminals knew that more Floridians would be armed, so they attacked the people most unlikely to be armed: tourists. On April 28th, 1996, a man with "a history of mental problems" and a rifle killed 32 people in Tasmania. The remarkable thing about it was that he did not shoot them all at once with a machine gun, but drove up to a pub and shot several people, drove to another pub and did it again, and then drove to a historic prison and did it again. At the prison there were 500 people, who all tried to flee. The killer was just one man, not wearing body armor and not a highly trained commando. He was just an insane man with a gun among defenseless people. He simply kept going to new places and killing more and more people until a team of 200 law enforcement officials finally showed up and arrested him. If just one person had been armed at the time and place of any such famous massacre, whether it be tourists in Tasmania, Lubby's Restaurant patrons shot in Texas, or school children in Stockton, California, things might have gone very differently. An observant coed with a pistol in her backpack could have stopped the tragedy in Tasmania, possibly even before anyone was killed. So might the teacher in Stockton. Or Suzanna Hupp-Gratia, whose parents died at the Lubby's restaurant in Texas; the killer had to stop several times to reload, but her gun sat useless in her car because it was illegal for her to take it into the restaurant. And it isn't necessary for everyone to walk around armed to the teeth for people to be safe. All it takes is for enough people to do it that it becomes too risky--too unprofitable--for criminals to attack people. This may not affect so-called "crimes of passion" or more deliberate homicides, and it might cause some muggers to change careers, but is not every attack prevented important? Having your purse or stereo stolen from your car is bad, but is not being raped worse? In spite of this very simple logic, legislators in Utah are contemplating ways to place spotlights on disarmed potential victims. Think of it as welfare for criminals--a list of places where they can attack profitably, knowing that their victims will be unable to fight back. Preposterous? Twisting the facts? Perhaps. Or perhaps not. Whatever they call their bills, however they describe their actions, legislators will in fact be delivering a list of places where victims will be disarmed if they pass laws that prohibit guns from those places. Intentions are irrelevant. The president of the University of Utah (a *public* institution) may honestly believe and persuade the legislature that no one--besides the police, whom criminals well know how to avoid--should carry guns on campus. Sincerity would not change the fact that, should this come to pass, the campus will essentially appear to criminals to be lit up with Las Vegas style neon signs that say: "Predators welcome! Victims have been disarmed!" It may seem like a radical slogan for militia members, but it is really simple logic. "Gun control" *is* victim disarmament and "gun-free zones" are defenseless victim zones. Utah's concealed carry law has worked well and has caused no problems; it should be left alone. Louis James The Sutherland Institute Policy Analyst Independence Square ljames@utah-inter.net 111 East 5600 South, Suite 208 (801) 281-2081 Murray, UT 84107 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Welfare for Criminals -Reply Date: 30 Jan 1998 12:41:05 -0700 Scott: Do you know if WELFARE FOR CRIMINALS: VICTIM DISARMAMENT, by Louis James has been submitted to the Tribune or D-news? They likely will not print it on the front page, but the citizens section or editorial section might include it some time. Thanks for everything you post on this list David Sagers - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "S. Thompson" Subject: Re: Hallmark Pulls "April Morning" Date: 30 Jan 1998 15:32:14 -0700 At 08:35 PM 1/29/98 -0700, you wrote: > >"APRIL MORNING" - A Samuel Goldwyn Home Entertainment Production >released through Hallmark Home Entertainment. ******************** >But April Morning isn't available, even though Hallmark has had the >authority to release it. In fact, about six months ago, a small number >of the videos were released, only to have the release stopped for some >unknown reason. The people at Hallmark Home Entertainment won't explain >why the release was halted. I suspect that the emotional nature and >historical accuracy of April Morning makes it politically dangerous. > >Patriot and Militia people across America need to phone Hallmark Home >Entertainment at 213-634-3000 and demand that April Morning be released. >Merchants need to provide this video in their shops. Churches need to >encourage their congregations to view it. > >I encourage people everywhere to inquire as to why the release of this >movie has been stopped. > >Perhaps the best review I can give is to tell you "The federal government >does not want you to see April Morning." Knowing this, I am sure it is >something you'll want to do. > >Kind Regards, > >Norm Olson OK, April Morning sounds like a good film and something I'd like to see - although to be honest, I can't imagine Hallmark making a controversial film, much less a politically dangerous one. But would someone please explain to me on what grounds I may DEMAND that it be released? Presumably, Hallmark made and owns the film. It's private property. I don't have the right to demand Hallmark's private property, anymore than I have a right to demand that my neighbor give me his VCR so I can watch it! It's also likely that the film was funded by one or more of Hallmark's usual big corporate sponsors, and they have rights too. Maybe they're angry that they'll never get the advertising they paid for. Or maybe they don't want their names linked to such a "politically dangerous" film. And while it's entirely possible that the government is behind the suppression of the film, I don't see any evidence. (It kind of reminds me of all the screaming about a government attempt to suppress Waco:TROE, when in fact the problem was a lawsuit between the producers.) Hallmark wants to make money. If enough people politely request that the film be made available, it might happen. No one wants a multi-million dollar video sitting in a storage facility. But DEMAND? No. If we Constitutionalist/Patriot people can't get it right, can't understand private property rights, then we can't very well expect that anyone else will either. If anyone has Norm Olson's e-mail address, let me know and I'll tell him myself. RANT mode OFF. Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com (under construction!) New! The Righter's weekly column with supplemental mail list. To subscribe send a message to: majordomo@aros.net with the message subscribe righter-list in the BODY of the message. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: Re: Hallmark Pulls "April Morning" -Forwarded Date: 30 Jan 1998 16:07:44 -0700 Received: from domo by lists.xmission.com with local (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0xyOz5-0005IZ-00; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:32:27 -0700 Received: from mars.aros.net [207.173.16.20] by lists.xmission.com with esmtp (Exim 1.73 #4) id 0xyOz1-0005Hp-00; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:32:23 -0700 Received: from sarahtho (xm1-18.slc.aros.net [207.173.24.163]) by mars.aros.net (8.8.7/8.8.4) with SMTP id PAA18566 for ; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:30:12 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980130153214.00d54bc0@aros.net> X-Sender: righter@aros.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) In-Reply-To: <8E844D3.01F5007A02.uuout@ucs.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: utah-firearms@lists.xmission.com At 08:35 PM 1/29/98 -0700, you wrote: > >"APRIL MORNING" - A Samuel Goldwyn Home Entertainment Production >released through Hallmark Home Entertainment. ******************** >But April Morning isn't available, even though Hallmark has had the >authority to release it. In fact, about six months ago, a small number >of the videos were released, only to have the release stopped for some >unknown reason. The people at Hallmark Home Entertainment won't explain >why the release was halted. I suspect that the emotional nature and >historical accuracy of April Morning makes it politically dangerous. > >Patriot and Militia people across America need to phone Hallmark Home >Entertainment at 213-634-3000 and demand that April Morning be released. >Merchants need to provide this video in their shops. Churches need to >encourage their congregations to view it. > >I encourage people everywhere to inquire as to why the release of this >movie has been stopped. > >Perhaps the best review I can give is to tell you "The federal government >does not want you to see April Morning." Knowing this, I am sure it is >something you'll want to do. > >Kind Regards, > >Norm Olson OK, April Morning sounds like a good film and something I'd like to see - although to be honest, I can't imagine Hallmark making a controversial film, much less a politically dangerous one. But would someone please explain to me on what grounds I may DEMAND that it be released? Presumably, Hallmark made and owns the film. It's private property. I don't have the right to demand Hallmark's private property, anymore than I have a right to demand that my neighbor give me his VCR so I can watch it! It's also likely that the film was funded by one or more of Hallmark's usual big corporate sponsors, and they have rights too. Maybe they're angry that they'll never get the advertising they paid for. Or maybe they don't want their names linked to such a "politically dangerous" film. And while it's entirely possible that the government is behind the suppression of the film, I don't see any evidence. (It kind of reminds me of all the screaming about a government attempt to suppress Waco:TROE, when in fact the problem was a lawsuit between the producers.) Hallmark wants to make money. If enough people politely request that the film be made available, it might happen. No one wants a multi-million dollar video sitting in a storage facility. But DEMAND? No. If we Constitutionalist/Patriot people can't get it right, can't understand private property rights, then we can't very well expect that anyone else will either. If anyone has Norm Olson's e-mail address, let me know and I'll tell him myself. RANT mode OFF. Sarah Sarah Thompson, M.D. http://www.therighter.com (under construction!) New! The Righter's weekly column with supplemental mail list. To subscribe send a message to: majordomo@aros.net with the message subscribe righter-list in the BODY of the message. - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: DAVID SAGERS Subject: JPFO: RKBA and Civil Rights -Forwarded Date: 30 Jan 1998 12:49:23 -0700 Received: (from smap@localhost) by fs1.mainstream.net (8.8.8/8.7.3) id OAA05875; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:37:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost(127.0.0.1) by fs1.mainstream.net via smap (V1.3) id sma005851; Fri Jan 30 14:36:29 1998 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19980130173104.008cc228@inet.skillnet.com> Errors-To: listproc@mainstream.com Reply-To: recon@inet.skillnet.com Originator: noban@mainstream.net Sender: noban@Mainstream.net Precedence: bulk X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Anti-Gun-Ban list NEW PARADIGMS IN THE CIVIL-RIGHTS MOVEMENT: Yes, Virginia, We Can Win; but First We Must Define the Question, and Then, We must Hold Hands and Work Together. By Robert G. Heinritz, Jr., J.D. Speech to Gun Rights Conference, Denver, Colorado, September 28, 1997 There is story about Sol, the Jewish tailor-haberdasher, who won a trip to Italy. Included in the trip was a tour of Rome and an audience with the Pope. Sol was a religious man, so he considered it an honor to meet with the leader of another great religion. When he returned home Sol's partner, Al, asked him, "So what about the Pope?" Sol's reply, "About a 38-portly." The lesson, of course, is that we all tend to see things in ways that relate to what we know. So what do I know, and what does that have to do with the Second Amendment movement? I'm an attorney and have worked for a big-deal law firm trying big-deal lawsuits, but my first love is management. For the last dozen years, far more of my work has been as a management consultant; specializing in strategic planning, productivity, and business turnarounds. In plain English, that means helping CEO's and their companies define who they are, where they want to be in 5 or 10 years; and then helping them develop clear, written plans with specific measurable goals for getting there. I also help them implement - by training them in team-building and productivity. This allows companies to achieve Win-Win-Win results; a win for the customers, a win for the employees, and a win for the companies who put their wealth at risk to create value for the economy. Sometimes this includes what businessmen call turnarounds; starting with a company that is in trouble - sometimes near bank-ruptcy - and helping it become efficient and productive. While this can require the use of sophisticated tools, most of it isn t rocket science. It's pretty fundamental stuff. What is required includes the ability to: a. Face reality as it is, not as we wish it to be, b. Admit our mistakes, and learn from them, c. Step back to question the fundamental assumptions that had been taken for granted, and d. Make and implement hard decisions. In short, I know leadership when I see it. I know good strategy when I see it. For members of the Second Amendment movement I recommend Al Dunlap's book, MEAN BUSINESS: How I Save Bad Companies, and Made Good Companies Great, as an example of good strategy. You will find many parallels - both good and bad. The bad news includes some of the same self-defeating practices we are commonly guilty of. (You may be reminded of Pogo's, "We have met the enemy, and they is us.") But there is also good news. You'll see Dunlap execute business, organizational, marketing, and financial strategies - in a manner that any competent manager could adapt to Second Amendment goals. So what is meant by "New Paradigms in the Civil-Rights Movement? A paradigm is how one defines the question, or more accurately, the unstated assumptions in a question. For example, early astrologers struggled to create a calendar which could accurately predict the movement of the heavenly bodies around the Earth. Notice how the question was defined. Until Copernicus with his theory, and Galilao, with the data gathered from his telescope, taught us that heavenly bodies do not move around the earth, it was impossible to create an accurate calendar because of how the question was asked. The answer was in finding a better way to state the question. In business, new paradigms - new ways of defining the question - or new ways of thinking out of the box include: 1. Sam Walton - rather than competing head-to-head against larger, more powerful retailers in high-priced malls - opened his first warehouse-discount store in the giant megalopolis of Bentonville, Arkansas - where the leading occupation had been jury duty. 2. Domino's Pizza - rather than competing against strong, established chains and restaurants to fill their stores with customers - instead took their stores to the customer - with a revolutionary delivery system. 3. Hospitals - in an industry with 50% of their beds empty, and an industry-average-net-profit of $0 - reversed the question of how to fill their beds with sick people, and developed the concept of wellness centers, which have succeeded in generating much higher occupancy with much higher profit-margins. It is very likely that the United States wouldn't exist in the form we know it if the Founders hadn't re-defined the question. They began petitioning for rights of Englishmen. Ultimately, they fought for and won rights of Americans - rooted in English rights - but taking several steps beyond; not the least of which is - Englishmen were (and still are) subjects of the sovereign - while Americans are citizens who own the sovereign. That s pretty fundamental. Reality as it is, not as we wish it? We in the Second Amendment movement are losing because (a) we confuse symptoms with problems and fail to accurately define the real problem, and (b) we fail to develop a real long-term strategy to take the initiative and win. 1. For example, do you think we have a PR problem? Or that the media aren't fair? Or that politicians who claim to support the Second Amendment turn on us by voting for anti-gun bills? Those aren't problems. Those are symptoms of a (much) larger problem. 2. Do you think we are winning because there are now 31 states with concealed-carry laws? If you think so, you may wish to reconsider. As Dan Polsby said in the March 24th issue of the National Review, we are kidding ourselves, because in the national debate we are losing, and losing badly. How can this be when the scholarly data is on our side? Perception is reality. - All politicians can count. Polsby didn't provide answers, but he correctly stated the problem. In a democracy, public policy is tailored to what the people believe, no matter what the facts might be. For weapons policy the point is not the connection between guns and violence - but how people see the connection. In the current atmosphere, cheerleading for gun rights will look mighty like cheering for murder and suicide and opposing common decency. The larger message - if people don't believe in each of the specifics in the Bill of Rights, sooner or later all those rights will be footnotes in history - by popular vote. The anti-civil rights forces have their own long-term strategic plans to whittle-down the Bill of Rights to nothing.(Some argue that 8 of 10 of the Bill of Rights are already gutted.) Henry Kissinger said, "You're not paranoid if they are really out to get you." We are in a war of information, and they are out to get us. Their Marxis-styled war of deceit is well-documented - most recently in Radical Son, by David Horowitz. Until we face these realities, and adequately define the question - the real question - we have little hope of success. What are the New Paradigms? Our battle is not for the Second Amendment - it is for the Bill of Rights. Our targets are not shooters or politicians - but opinion leaders and the voting public. Our goal - is to win over the hearts and minds of the American public. This is our new paradigm. This is our turnaround. Sound grandiose? Maybe not. David Kopel has said the Bill of Rights isn't for conservatives to protect their property or guns, or for liberals to protect filthy speech or rights of accused. Those rights were meant to hang together. To the extent any of the rights are abridged, all are at risk. Or as Dr. Martin Luther King said, "Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere." Our priority may be the Second Amendment, but our perspective must be civil rights. Charlton Heston s 3-year campaign to save the Second Amendment is wonderful, and very much needed. But that campaign is to our long-term goals as the original 13 Colonies were to the United States. But first we must define who we are, and where we are going. As Lewis Carroll said in Alice in Wonderland, "If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there." So who are we? There is nothing inherently wrong with being, say, a small group of target or bird shooters - anymore than being a membership-organization of 20-million. But given the political and societal realities, unless we figure out a way to make allies of people who have no interest in picking up a gun we could end up in the same fix as in Great Britain or Australia. As my friend, Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp said, The Second Amendment ain't about duck hunting. We need allies. Alone, we can't win hearts and minds here - any more than we could in Vietnam. We need conservatives, liberals, and agnostics - who may or may not have an interest in guns - but with whom we can forge common bonds in the Bill of Rights and the values that made this country. 1. Do you really want to face reality as it is, and not as we wish it to be? Politicians don't turn on us. Politicians vote anti-Second Amendment, anti-Civil rights, because it gives them power. If it had been necessary for him to gain the Presidency, even Bill Clinton would have been pro-gun. Perception is reality. All politicians can count. 2. So we need the people from A.C.L.U. - as they need us. We need the environmentalists. We need the libertarians, the churches, the unions, the doctors, the sociologists, and the teachers. We need the children. Most of all we need the voting public. If we have them, the media and politicians will follow. (So how do we do this?) Action Plans Like a well-run business with competitors trying to put it our of business, we must have clear, written, long-term strategic plans. This can help us with many things, including: First: A clear definition who we are and what we stand for - not against. Second: Clearly-defined and measurable goals, enabling us to take the initiative. Politics is almost inherently short-term oriented, so in the absence of clear, long-term plans it is almost impossible not to get pulled into defensiveness by reacting to the opposition's initiatives. With long-term goals, it is easier to make incremental, short-term gains toward our objectives. By taking and maintaining the initiative, it is easier to manage the public debate, frame the issues and get good press. Our tests have proven that. Third: Finding a Ronald Reagan leader - or several of them - who are good T.V. communicators, friendly, welcoming, inclusive, bringing more people into the efforts; but absolutely reliable and unwavering on principles and fundamental values. There can be more than one, and they should include women. Rebecca John Wyatt and Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp are good examples. Both are warm, articulate, and effective communicators. Rebecca is as good with the data as anyone. Suzanna is the only person I know who successfully got Representative Charles Schumer to shut up! Fourth: No compromising on principles! We can pick our battles, and it can be appropriate to compromise to achieve an advance-ment toward our goals. We should never compromise our principles. We should never compromise with the people who are out to get us. Compromising with the devil is a losing strategy! Winston Churchill strongly condemned Neville Chamberlain s treaty with Hitler as appeasement. An appeaser, according to Churchill, is someone who throws his children to the crocodile, in hopes the Crocodile will eat him last! Examples? 1. How often have we been maneuvered into campaigning for our gun control bills (and it's not the gun that is being controlled - it's the civil-rights of the law-abiding) because our anti-rights bill curbs rights of the law-abiding less than their anti-rights bill? Often, both are bad bills, exhibiting our failure to have taken the initiative to frame the issues correctly. 2. To that end, how could we support any but Representative Helen Chenoweth's bill to totally repeal the Lautenberg amendment? The Lautenberg law is totally bad, of questionable Constitutionality, and questionable ancestry. ( Question-able ancestry is lawyer-talk for S.O.B.) We screwed up when we allowed it to be passed in the first place. It needs to be totally repealed! In the real world, compromise happens. But compromise on principle should never be tolerated. In facing reality as it is - not as we wish it to be - we should recall Churchill's promise, "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, sweat, and tears." We are facing exciting opportunities - if we know how to manage them. Like the Soviet Union in its final years, the anti-civil rights forces in the United States are big, scary, dangerous - and from outward appearances - well-funded and nearly invulnerable. But behind the facade is little depth and staying-power. It was Ronald Reagan who was willing to stand firm on principles, develop the plan, and expend the resources to deter aggression. He knew where he was going, and he never wavered. In the face of such resolve, an already weakened Soviet Union folded. Arming to deter aggression ultimately served non-violence. History can repeat itself, but it will take our leadership, effort, and resolve: The anti-civil rights forces in this country will continue to advance if we let them. But their flaws are more apparent. It's not for nothing that Rush Limbaugh became a millionaire. The absurdity of the opposition is their Achilles heel. The credible scholarly data is on our side, and they know it. Much like the N.A.A.C.P. during the first half of this century, we are many people, with many different interests, doing many different things, but all for common civil rights goals. It is in our interest to pull as many people into the effort as we can. Our plan must be long-term in orientation, large-scale in perspective, and inclusive in its execution. We must bring as many allies as possible into the effort. Most important, it must clearly state what we are for - not against - to help us gain the initiative. Then we must implement - with an ongoing policy of always seeking the initiative. The job isn't easy - but it is simple if we keep our heads and work together. If we do, there is reason for optimism. Despite the day-to-day media trash, there is an underlying wisdom, goodness, and strength among the people of this country. They are ready to hear our message. It is our job - our responsibility - to manage and deliver it effectively. Civil rights, at a minimum, includes the right to defend your life - and the lives of your babies. If it saves one life, it's worth it! - so - Let's do it for the children-! ----- Bob Heinritz is an honors graduate in management and law, and a member of the Bar of the states of Arizona, Illinois, and Missouri. He is a former trial lawyer, and now a business attorney and management consultant, specializing in strategic planning, productivity, and business turnarounds. JPFO would like to thank its membership for their loyal support. For without our membership, alerts as this would not be possible. Please consider joining JPFO today. Membership information is available on our web site. ************************************************************** Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership Chris W. Stark - JPFO Director of Electronic Communications 2874 So. Wentworth Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53207 Ph. (414) 769-0760 Fax (414) 483-8435 e-mail: Against-Genocide@JPFO.org Visit our Web Page at: http://www.JPFO.org "America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership." ************************************************************** TO SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-MAIL ALERTS, send an e-mail to: subscribe@JPFO.org ..and in the body of the message, type the word "subscribe". ************************************************************** -